Digitized  by  tlie  Internet  Arcliive 

in  2007  witli  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcli  ive.org/details/discussionsintlieOOvandiala 


DISCISSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY, 


Doctrinal  and  Practical. 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  FACULTY 

OF  VANDERBILT  UNIVERSITY. 


Printed  for  the  Faculty. 

PuBLisiiiNQ  House  of  the  M.  E.  Chuech,  South. 

J.  D.  Barbee,  Agent,  Nashville,  Tbnn. 

1890. 


FACULTY 

OF  THE 

THEOLOGICAL  DEPARTMENT 

OF 

VANDERBILT  UNIVERSITY. 


LANDON  C.  GARLAND,  LL.D.,  Chancellor. 

REV.  WILBUR  F.  TILLETT,  D.D., 

Dean  of  the  Faculty  and  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology. 

REV.  GROSS  ALEXANDER,  B.D., 

Professor  of  New  Testament  Greek  and  Exegesis. 

REV.  E.  E.  HOSS,  D.D., 

Professor  of  Biblical  and  Ecclesiastical  History. 

.      REV.  W.  W.  MARTIN,  B.D., 

Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Old  Testament  Exegesis. 


COPYBIOHT,  1890. 


PREFATORY  NOTE. 


It  has  been  the  custom  of  the  Theological  Faculty  of 
Vanderbilt  University,  in  addition  to  the  regular  work  of 
the  class  room,  to  meet  the  students  of  the  Biblical  De- 
partment collectively  once  a  week  and  deliver  to  them 
lectures  on  various  subjects  in  theology,  these  lectures 
being  delivered  by  the  different  members  of  the  Faculty 
in  rotation.  They  consist  chiefly  in  current  discussions  of 
living  topics  in  doctrinal  and  practical  theology,  such  as 
may  be  of  a  more  general  and  popular  nature  than  those 
delivered  in  the  lecture  room.  As  many  of  the  subjects 
here  discussed  are  of  general  interest  to  the  theological 
and  religious  public,  the  Faculty  have  thought  it  not 
unwise  to  give  more  permanent  and  public  form  to  some 
of  these  lectures.  This  volume  is,  therefore,  given  to  the 
public  in  the  hope  that  it  may  meet  a  demand  which  we 
believe  to  exist  in  the  Church  for  the  discussion  of  such 
subjects  and  problems  as  are  here  presented. 

Vanderbilt  University,  January  1,  1890. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Materialism Chancellor  Garland.      7 

Creed  and  Character;  or,  the  Rationale  of  Faith. 

Professor  Tillett.    25 

German  Higher  Criticism  :  The  Tubingen  Theory. 

Professor  Alexander.    43 

The  Prince  of  Preachers  :  John  Chrysostom. 

Professor  Hoss.    85 

The  Faith  of  the  Antediluvian  PATRiARcna    Lectcre  I. 

Professor  Martin.  107 

Religious  Skepticism Professor  Tillett.  131 

A  Brief  Study  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament. 

Professor  Alexander.  161 

The  Christian  Minister  as  a  Preacher.  .  .Professor  Hass.  191 

The  Faith  of  the  Antediluvian  Patriarchs.    Lecture  II. 

Professor  Martin.  205 

Future  and  Eternal  Punishment Professor  Tillett.  225 

The  Invention  of  Material  for  Preaching. 

Professor  Alexander.  257 

Christianity  and  Art.    The  Iconoclastic  Controversy. 

Professor  Hoss.  277 

The  Christ-paintings  of  Munkacsy Professor  Martin.  297 


MATERIALISM. 


It  cannot  be  doubted  by  any  one  who  has  watched 
the  signs  of  the  times  that  the  tendency  of  the  present 
age  is  to  materialism.  This  is  not  surprising  when  we 
consider  the  wonderful  discoveries  of  the  past  fifty  years 
in  relation  to  the  nature  of  physical  forces  and  the  suc- 
cessful applications  of  the  same  to  the  wants  of  man. 
These  applications  have  extended  to  all  industrial  pur- 
suits— to  those  of  agriculture,  of  manufactures,  and  of 
art.  They  have  well-nigh  annihilated  time  and  space 
through  telegraphic  and  telephonic  communication. 
Wonderful  changes  have  thus  come  over  the  whole  in- 
dustrial world,  whereby  the  attention  of  men  has  been 
directed  to  new  avenues  for  the  rapid  accumulation  of 
wealth  and  for  enlarged  gratification  of  physical  wants 
and  desires.  Thus  it  is  the  public  mind  has  been  in  a 
great  measure  shut  out  from  the  contemplation  of  the 
immaterial  and  spiritual,  and  unduly  concentrated  upon 
the  material.  And  when  we  further  consider  that  the 
ruin  of  the  fall  fell  much  more  disastrously  upon  the 
spiritual  than  upon  the  intellectual  nature  of  man,  we 
are  still  less  surprised  at  the  materialistic  tendency  of 
this  age. 

The  intellect  as  contradistinguished  from  the  soul  did 
not  lose  its  powers  of  operation  directed  to  objects  of 


8  DlSCtTSStONS  IN  THfiOLOGY. 

sense— did  not  lose  its  capacity  of  observing  and  com- 
paring the  properties  of  bodies,  of  arranging  them  into 
classes  and  genera  and  species,  of  carrying  on  the  inves- 
tigations of  physical  science,  so  as  to  arrive  at  the 
knowledge  of  physical  laws.  The  every-day  business  of 
life  stimulates  the  activities  of  the  intellect  in  this  direc- 
tion, the  chief  office  of  which  is  to  combine  means  for 
the  accomplishment  of  ends.  So  that  the  intellect  may 
be  likened  to  a  plant  indigenous  to  our  soil — of  the  earth, 
earthly,  of  rapid  and  hardy  growth — needing  nothing 
but  the  stimulation  of  man's  desires  and  wants  and  the 
culture  of  man's  hand.  On  the  other  hand,  the  spiritu- 
al— ^that  which  distinguishes  man  from  the  brutes,  that 
which  allies  him  to  heaven,  and  which  constitutes  him 
a  moral  and  responsible  being — may  be  likened  to  an 
exotic  from  a  distant  realm,  of  difficult  and  tender 
growth,  requiring  not  only  the  culture  of  the  hand  of 
man,  but  of  that  hand  from  which  it  was  originally  de- 
rived and  by  which  it  was  implanted  in  our  natui'c, 
when  man  became  a  living  soul. 

I  am  not  surprised,  therefore,  that  cultivators  of  the 
material  sciences  who  have  limited  their  thoughts  and 
studios  to  the  outward  and  visible  phenomena  of  nature, 
to  the  entire  neglect  of  the  inward  and  the  invisible, 
should  have  become  gross  materialists  and  skeptics, 
teaching  that  matter  has  existed  from  all  eternity  un- 
created, in  self-possession  of  the  properties  and  forces  it 
exhibits,  and  out  of  the  operation  of  which,  indefinitely 
prolonged,  has  come  the  cosmos  we  behold.    They  seek 


MAfEtllAttgM.  9 

for  nothing  back  of  this,  and  admit  of  no  forces  but 
those  they  attribute  to  matter.  Starting  out  with  these 
assumed  inherent  forces,  acting  uniformly  in  modes 
which  are  called  laws  of  nature,  they  have  disdained  to 
inquire  into  the  true  origin  and  nature  of  these  forces 
and  laws.  They  have  no  need,  say  they,  for  any  Creat- 
or other  than  nature.  They  thus  attempt  to  hurl  Jeho- 
vah from  his  throne  of  universal  empire,  and  to  set  up 
as  gods,  in  his  stead,  the  supposed  underived  processes 
and  laws  of  nature.  They  have  gone  so  far  as  to  hold 
that  there  is  nothing  but  matter  and  its  habitudes,  that 
mind  is  not  spiritual  in  the  sense  of  opposition  to  mat- 
ter, but  is  only  an  emanation  of  matter  in  its  most  high- 
ly organized  and  refined  condition. 

That  I  do  not  misstate  the  position  of  advanced  materi- 
alists, let  a  few  brief  extracts  from  their  published  works 
show :  Cabinis  and  Yoght  maintain  that  the  "  brain  se- 
cretes thought  just  as  the  liver  secretes  bile."  Moleschott 
declares  that  "  thought  is  a  motion  of  matter."  Buchner 
says  that  "  mental  activity  is  a  function  of  the  cerebral 
substance  emitted  by  the  brain,  as  sounds  are  by  the 
mouth,  or  as  music  is  by  the  organ  pipe."  Spencer  says 
the  doctrine  "  that  no  idea  or  feeling  arises,  save  as  a  re- 
sult of  physical  force  expended  in  producing  it,  is  fast 
becoming  a  commonplace  of  science."  Tyndall  says: 
"  Given  the  state  of  the  brain,  the  corresponding  thought 
or  feeling  might  be  infen*ed."  Huxley  says :  "All  vital 
action  is  the  result  of  the  molecular  forces  of  the  proto- 
plasm which  displays  it." 


lO  DiSCltSSIOllS  IK  TflBOLOGY. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  see  the  ruinous  tendency  of  such 
teachings  as  these ;  it  is  to  subvert  the  whole  founda- 
tion upon  which  our  religion  rests,  and  to  shake  our  faith 
in  the  truths  of  the  Bible.  A  large  share  of  the  infidelity 
of  the  present  day  is  due  to  the  wide-spread  acceptance 
of  the  dogmas  of  materialists. 

I  have  therefore  deemed  it  a  useful  service  upon  this 
occasion  to  show  that  these  doctrines  have  no  foundation 
in  the  light  of  principles  universally  accepted.  If  we  were 
allowed  to  discuss  materialism  from  the  stand-point  of  di- 
vine revelation,  we  could  make  a  short  end  of  it.  But  its 
advocates  refuse  to  hear  arguments  drawn  from  a  divine 
source,  and  demand  that  the  debate  be  conducted  alto- 
gether in  the  light  of  science.  To  this  I  do  not  object. 
I  take  up  the  gauntlet,  and  shall  at  once  proceed  with 
an  endeavor  to  refute  all  forms  of  materialism  by  consid- 
erations drawn  from  the  true  nature  of  matter  and  force. 

In  the  outset  I  must  come  to  an  understanding  with 
my  audience  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  cause, 
upon  which  the  changes  have  been  so  constantly  rung 
by  materialists  and  atheists.  Ever  since  the  publication  of 
that  immortal  work,  Kant's  "  Criticism  of  Pure  Eeason," 
the  idea  of  causation — along  with  those  of  substance, 
space,  and  time — has  been  ranked  among  our  primitive 
intuitions,  and  held  to  be  an  a  priori  conception  of  the 
mind,  and  not  the  result  of  experience.  As  such,  it  is  a 
necessary  and  universal  truth.  By  Cousin  it  is  held  to 
be  logically  prior,  though  chronologically  subsequent  to 
experience.    As  Sir  William  Hamilton  holds  it,  it  is  co- 


MATERIALISM.  *  11 

instantaneous  with  the  first  instance  of  causation  arising 
in  experience.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  proposition  which 
I  wish  to  establish  is  this :  that  the  notion  of  causality 
always  includes  that  of  efficiency  in  the  cause  for  the  pro- 
duction of  the  effect.  Unless  there  is  between  successive 
events  an  efficient  relation  perceived,  the  mind  will  not 
entertain  the  relation  of  causality. 

While  the  notion  of  causation  is  intuitive  and  univer- 
sal, the  knowledge  of  causes  themselves  must  be  derived 
from  experience.  That  no  event  can  happen  without  an 
adequate  cause  is  a  dictum  of  universal  acceptance ;  but 
what  the  cause  really  may  be  experience  only  can  show. 
Most  frequently  the  misapplications  of  the  word  "  cause  " 
consist  in  mistaking  either  (1)  the  occasion  of  an  event  for 
its  efficient  cause,  or  (2)  in  taking  some  condition  in  the  op- 
eration of  a  cause  for  the  cause  itself,  or  (3)  some  antecedent 
event  for  a  primary  cause.  Let  me  illustrate  by  a  famil- 
iar example.  If  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  stone,  it  will  not 
fall  to  the  ground  so  long  as  I  support  it.  The  moment 
I  relax  my  hold  its  fall  occurs.  One  would  greatly  err 
if  he  should  take  the  relaxation  of  the  hand  as  the  cause 
of  the  fall ;  and  yet  the  relaxation  is  a  condition  necessa- 
ry to  the  event.  But  in  the  mere  relaxation  of  the  hand 
there  is  no  potency  to  change  the  place  of  the  stone,  no 
efficiency  to  cause  it  to  fall.  It  only  leaves  the  stone 
firee  to  yield  to  a  proper  potency  having  a  different 
source.  So  that  a  condition,  necessary  even  to  an  event, 
is  not  the  cause,  albeit  it  is  often  mistaken  for  it.  Take 
an  illustration  of  an  antecedent  event  reckoned  improp- 


12  t)180U88lOi*S  lU  MEOtoat, 

erly  as  a  cause.  A  nail  is  driven  by  a  hammer.  Many 
persons,  on  being  asked  for  the  cause,  would  state  it  to 
be  the  impact  of  the  hammer.  This,  however,  is  a  mere 
antecedent  event,  and  cannot  be  the  ultimate  and  true 
cause;  for  the  potency  of  the  hammer  is  derived  from 
the  muscular  effort  of  the  arm ;  nor  will  it  do  to  put  the 
ultimate  cause  in  the  muscles,  for  these  act  in  obedience 
to  the  motor  nerves ;  nor  yet  in  the  nerves,  for  these  are 
put  into  activity  by  the  volition  of  him  who  wields  the 
hammer.  The  volition — an  act  of  the  will — is  therein  the 
source,  the  originating,  the  efficient  cause  of  the  action — 
the  true  primary  and  efficient  cause.  In  volition,  then, 
we  have  a  real  origin  of  a  succession  of  events.  For 
though  the  will  is  acted  upon  by  motives,  there  is  no 
true  causality  in  motives,  because  there  is  no  necessary 
relation  between  the  motive  and  the  volition ;  for  if  so, 
•the  will  would  not  he  free,  not  at  liberty  to  determine 
between  two  alternatives,  as  is  admitted  to  be  the  case. 
Then,  in  our  example,  the  will  is  the  sole  primary  and  ef- 
ficient cause,  and  it  is  a  misnomer — or,  I  may  say,  a  figure 
of  speech — to  call  any  one  of  the  succeeding  events  the 
primary  cause  of  those  that  follow,  and  yet  how  com- 
monly is  this  done !  With  proper  qualification  the  inter- 
mediate events  may  be  called  secondary  causes,  but  not 
one  of  them  can  be  regarded  as  the  primary  cause  and 
the  true  source  of  efficiency.  Furthermore,  between 
true  causes  and  their  effects  there  is  an  indissoluble 
bond ;  so  that  if  there  be  no  hindering  conditions,  the 
one  must  always  follow  the  other,  the  cause  being  the 


MATERIALISM.  13 

antecedent  and  the  effect  the  consequent.  This  invariabili- 
ty of  succession  in  true  causation  has  often  led  to  the  er- 
roneous assumption  that  invariability  of  succession  is  a 
mark  of  causation.  This,  however,  is  wide  of  the  truth, 
and  is  an  error  into  which  the  celebrated  Dr.  Brown  fell 
in  writing  his  Philosophy  of  the  Human  Mind.  Besides 
invariability  of  succession,  there  must  be  further  a  caus- 
al relation,  without  the  perception  of  which  the  mind  re- 
fuses to  recognize  the  presence  of  a  cause. 

The  seasons  roll  round  in  invariable  succession,  yet 
who  says  that  winter  is  the  cause  of  summer,  or  sum- 
mer of  winter  ?  What  succession  can  bo  more  uniform 
and  constant  than  that  of  day  and  night,  yet  who  will 
say  that  night  causes  day,  or  day  night?  Invariable 
succession  is  not,  therefore,  a  mark  of  causation.  At 
most  it  can  only  create  a  suspicion  of  causal  relation, 
which  must  be  resolved  by  a  subsequent  investigation  to 
determine  whether  or  not  the  relation  of  efficiency  sub- 
sists between  the  antecedent  and  the  invariable  conse- 
quent. 

Having  thus  explained  the  true  meaning  of  the  word 
cause,  I  proceed  to  lay  down  a  second  proposition  which 
is  fundamental  in  this  discussion — namely,  that  inorgan- 
ic matter  is  absolutely  adynamic,  absolutely  passive,  hav- 
ing no  activity  inherent  within  itself,  having  in  itself 
no  power  to  affect  its  own  state.  This  is  the  acknowl- 
edged basis  of  all  systems  of  natui-al  philosophy,  and  it 
has  been  derived  from  the  univoi"sal  experience  of  man- 
kind.   The  doctrine  of  the  inertia  of  inorganic  matter  is 


14  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY, 

older  than  science ;  and  it  implies  an  inability  in  matter 
to  change  in  the  least  either  its  state  or  place  by  virtue 
of  an  inherent  efficiency.  It  means  that  all  changes  in 
matter  arise  from  an  efficiency  outside  of  and  independ- 
ent of  it.  It  is  from  the  absence  of  inherent  efficiency 
that  matter  is,  as  we  know  it  to  be,  entirely  obedient  to 
the  forces  that  act  on  it.  If  a  particle  be  acted  on  by  a 
thousand  forces,  it  obeys  each  as  if  the  others  did  not 
exist.  This  is  a  principle  of  mechanics  never  questioned, 
and  is  possible  only  in  consequence  of  the  absolute  pas- 
sivity of  matter. 

Newton's  three  laws  of  motion,  universally  accepted 
as  true,  have  no  other  foundation  but  the  doctrine  of  in- 
ertia, and  they  have  proved  adequate  to  explain  every 
phenomenon  relating  to  the  action  of  both  molar  and 
molecular  forces.  Nay,  more!  they  have  transformed 
the  astronomer  into  the  prophet.  On  the  assumption 
that  the  matter  composing  the  sun,  moon,  and  planets 
is  absolutely  inert,  and  therefore  without  lot  or  hinder- 
ance,  entirely  obedient  to  the  external  forces  that  act 
upon  it,  the  astronomer  calculates  the  positions  and  mo- 
tions of  those  bodies  with  a  precision  wholly  inconsist- 
ent with  the  existence  in  matter  of  any  inherent  effi- 
ciency whatsoever.  He  predicts  celestial  phenomena 
centuries  before  they  occur.  He  can  to-day  direct  the 
axis  of  his  telescope  to  the  point  in  the  heavens  at 
which  Jupiter  or  any  planet  will  arrive  a  hundred 
years  hence ;  so  that  the  observer  at  that  remote  period 
would  have  only  to  look  along  the  axis  of  the  undis- 


MATERIALISM.  15 

turbed  instrument  to  see  the  planet  arrive  at  its  calcu- 
lated time  and  place,  A  theory  which  works  out  such 
marvelously  precise  results  has  all  the  marks  of  truth, 
and  challenges  the  universal  acceptance  of  mankind. 
Such  is  the  theory  of  the  inertia  of  inorganic  matter,  its 
entire  deadness,  so  to  speak,  its  total  inability  to  affect 
itself.  Upon  this  ground  we  plant  our  batteries  against 
all  the  forms  of  materialism,  with  the  assurance  that  no 
sophistry  will  be  able  to  dislodge  us  from  it. 

This  principle  was  never  questioned  until  certain  sci- 
entists arose,  who,  under  the  assumed  properties  of  what 
they  called  protoplasm,  claimed  for  matter  an  inherent 
activity,  out  of  which,  by  development,  have  come  all 
the  beings  and  forms  of  the  universe.  This  claim,  in 
contradiction  to  the  firmest  established  principle  in  sci- 
ence, has  never  been  made  good  by  experiment,  and, 
until  it  is,  will  never  be  conceded  by  rational  minds. 
Spencer  and  his  school  have  adroitly  but  vainly  endeav- 
ored to  escape  the  logical  consequences  of  the  doctrine 
of  inertia  by  accepting  it  as  true  of  matter  in  mass,  but 
denying  it  as  to  the  constituent  molecules  of  matter.  Now 
we  have  a  mechanics  of  molecules  under  the  operation  of 
molecular  forces,  as  well  as  of  masses  under  the  opera- 
tion of  molar  forces,  based  on  Newton's  three  laws,  by 
which  all  the  phenomena  of  sound,  heat,  and  light  are 
as  satisfactorily  explained  as  those  of  mechanics,  hydro- 
statics, and  pneumatics.  The  mathematical  deductions 
of  these  forces,  molar  and  molecular,  are  alike  accurate, 
and  are  founded  alike  upon  the  entire  passivity  of  mat- 


16  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

ter,  whether  in  the  molecular  or  molar  state.  It  is  ab- 
surd to  claim  inherent  activity  for  every  separate  mole- 
cule, and  yet  deny  it  to  their  aggregated  state.  It  would 
be  just  as  rational  to  claim  healthy  action  for  every  sep- 
arate organ  of  the  human  body,  and  yet  pronounce  the 
body  as  a  whole  to  be  dead.  You  cannot  budge  a  step 
in  the  investigation  of  either  molar  or  molecular  forces 
without  a  recognition  of  the  absolute  inertness  of  all 
forms  of  inorganic  matter,  and  therefore  without  attrib- 
uting all  changes  observed  in  it  to  the  operation  of  exte- 
rior forces.  This  is  the  ground,  I  repeat,  upon  which  we 
plant  oiu*selves,  from  which  it  is  impossible  to  drive  us, 
and  upon  which,  making  our  attack,  we  can  scatter  to 
the  winds  all  the  speculations  and  sophistries  of  materi- 
alists. 

To  go  yet  deeper  into  this  discussion,  I  lay  down  another 
fundamental  proposition :  that  our  only  conception  of  force 
is  derived  from  the  energizing  of  the  will.  This  was  the 
doctrine  of  Plato,  of  the  Eealists  among  the  School-men, 
of  Descartes,  and  is  the  one  held  by  our  soundest  meta- 
physicians and  our  ablest  writers  on  Force.  I  regard  it 
as  a  corollary  of  the  proposition  relative  to  the  inertia 
of  matter.  Mind  and  matter  embrace  all  the  objects  of 
our  cognition ;  and  if  the  latter  be  absolutely  inert,  it 
would  seem  absurd  to  look  to  it  for  the  origination  of 
efficient  force,  which  is  an  active  agent.  It  would  be 
looking  for  the  living  among  the  dead.  We  must  look 
for  the  origin  of  force  in  that  which  is  not  matter. 

1  have  already  shown  that  invariable  sequence  is  no 


MATEEIALI8M.  17 

proof  of  a  causal  relation.  Hume  and  Mill  have  rea- 
soned unanswerably  to  the  conclusion  that  the  idea  of 
cause,  in  its  true  sense  of  efficiency,  could  never  have 
arisen  from  the  observation  of  outward  phenomena.  A 
good  many  years  ago,  when  I  began  the  investigation  of 
these  matters,  having  been  educated  in  the  school  of 
Locke,  I  regretted  that  I  could  not  pick  a  flaw  in  Hume's 
argument  on  this  point.  I  am  now  glad  that  I  cannot, 
and  that  I  can  claim  the  verdict  of  two  such  subtle  in- 
tellects in  behalf  of  the  proposition  I  have  just  asserted. 
Then  if  it  be  true  that  our  notion  of  force  has  not  come 
to  us  from  the  observation  of  outward  phenomena,  we 
must  have  derived  it  from  the  consciousness  of  a  nisus 
in  the  execution  of  our  own  volitions  upon  matter.  The 
child  of  a  few  days  old,  when  the  images  of  moving  ob- 
jects are  first  painted  upon  the  retina  of  the  eye,  could 
never  have  come  to  the  notion  of  force  as  the  cause  of 
motion  until,  in  the  movements  of  his  own  limbs,  in  the 
tossings  of  his  toys,  he  finds  matter  to  be  obedient  to  his 
will;  when  he  experiences  this  power  of  his  will  over 
matter,  he  comes  to  the  conception  of  force.  In  his 
earliest  experience  he  comes  into  the  possession  of  two 
great  concepts :  the  one  the  passivity  of  matter,  and  the 
other  th£  force  of  the  will.  This  utterly  demolishes  the 
definition  of  force  given  by  modern  materialists — i.  e., 
that  force  is  matter  in  motion.  No  one  denies  the  en- 
ergy of  matter  in  motion — i.  e.,  capacity  to  do  work. 
But  the  question  in  consideration  is  the  source  of  the  en- 
ergy ?    It  is  a  mere  figure  of  speech,  whereby  we  apply 


18  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

the  term  force  to  any  apparent  energy  not  proceeding 
from  the  will.  Let  me  illustrate.  Here  is  a  spiral  of 
steel  wire  suspended  from  this  ceiling.  I  take  hold  of 
its  lower  extremity,  and  by  a  conscious  volition  elongate 
it,  say  a  foot.  Herein  is  force,  true  force,  originated 
force,  arising  in  the  will.  Removing  my  hand,  I  next 
suspend  a  weight  to  the  extremity  of  the  coil  of  such 
magnitude  that  it  elongates  it  to  the  same  extent.  Now 
because  the  weight  does  the  same  work  my  hand  did, 
we  call  it,  by  a  figure  of  speech,  a  force.  This  personifi- 
cation of  the  actions  of  bodies  on  each  other  is  the  tend- 
ency of  the  human  mind  pointing  unmistakably  to  voli- 
tions as  the  origin  of  force. 

Comte,  in  his  "  Positive  Philosophy,"  marks  the  prog- 
ress of  human  knowledge  by  three  stages.  The  first  is 
that  of  superstition,  or,  as  he  sneeringly  calls  it,  theolog- 
ical, a  stage  in  which  mankind  personified  all  physical 
causes.  It  was,  indeed,  a  period  of  ignorance  in  both 
science  and  religion ;  for  in  the  one  no  valuable  deduc- 
tions from  facts  had  been  made,  and  in  the  other  the 
true  idea  of  one  Supreme  Being  had  been  lost.  Never- 
theless, in  that  personification  there  is  a  philosophy 
much  deeper  than  Comte's.  It  is  the  unbiased  testimo- 
ny of  mankind  to  the  fact  that  matter  cannot  be  the 
source  of  force;  and  hence  every  fountain  and  brook 
and  river  and  forest  and  mountain  was  supplied  with  its 
personal  deity  to  produce  and  preside  over  the  outward 
phenomena.  Each  revolving  planet  had  its  imaginary 
deity  to  impel  it  and  hold  it  to  its  orbit.    This  was  done 


MATERIALISM.  19 

to  relieve  the  mind  from  the  absurdity  of  attributing 
outward  phenomena  to  inert  matter  as  a  source  of  force. 
Indeed,  it  is  now  admitted  by  all  but  materialistic  phi- 
losophers that  "  force  is  not  a  physical  phenomenon,  but  a 
mental  dictum."  We  cannot  conceive  of  it  but  as  origi- 
nating in  a  Will.  Outward  nature  presents  us  with 
nothing  but  sequence,  which  we  have  shown  to  be  no  ev- 
idence of  efficient  causation.  "  The  idea  of  force  is  home- 
born,  and  born  only  of  our  own  conscious  effort.  It  is 
only  as  we  are  agents  that  wo  believe  in  action.  It  is 
only  as  there  is  causation  within  that  we  get  a  hint  of 
causation  without.  Not  gravity,  not  electricity,  not 
magnetism,  not  chemical  affinity,  but  Will  is  the  typical 
idea  of  force.  Will  is  the  sum  total  of  dynamic  concep- 
tion. It  either  stands  for  that  or  nothing.  If  science 
likes  not  this  alternative,  then  it  has  no  warrant  for  be- 
lief in  force  at  all."  Hence  the  great  anxiety  of  materi- 
alists to  evade  this  alternative;  but  we  will  not  allow 
them  to  escape  from  it.  They  shall  not  play  fast  and 
loose  with  the  terms  force  and  matter,  at  one  moment  as- 
signing absolute  inertness  to  matter,  and  at  the  next  an 
inherent  autonomy,  by  which  they  would  explain  all  the 
phenomena  of  force.  Wo  hold  them  to  a  definite  choice 
between  the  two ;  and  if  they  assign,  as  they  do,  an  in- 
herent efficiency  to  matter,  let  us  for  consistency's  sake 
hear  no  more  about  its  inertia.  Let  us  commit  to  the 
flames  all  our  books  on  natural  philosophy,  and  lay  the 
foundation  of  a  new  system  upon  this  autonomy  of  mat- 
ter. 


20  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOOT. 

Hero  it  may  be  asked,  "  Do  you  mean  to  say  that 
there  are  no  inherent  forces  in  inorganic  matter  ?  "  That 
is  just  precisely  what  I  do  say.  "  What !  is  not  gravity 
inherent  in  matter  and  the  cause  of  the  falling  of  bodies 
and  of  the  centripetal  tendency  of  the  planets  to  the 
sun?"  I  say,  no  more  so  than  the  hammer  is  the  effl- 
cient  cause  of  driving  a  nail.  The  author  of  the  theory 
of  gravitation  never  considered  gravity  as  an  efficient 
cause.  Newton  was  too  sound  a  logician  and  too  wise  a 
philosopher  to  hold  any  such  absurdity  as  that.  He 
warned  us  again  and  again  that  he  did  not  consider 
gravity  a  cause  at  all,  but  an  effect.  In  his  celebrated 
scholium  to  the  third  book  of  the  Principia  he  uses  this 
language:  "Thus  far  I  have  explained  the  phenomena 
of  the  heavens  and  the  earth  by  the  force  of  gravity,  but 
the  cause  of  gravity  I  have  not  assigned."  So  that 
gravity  with  him  was  an  effect  of  an  unassigned  cause. 
It  is  well  known  that  Leibnitz  and  his  school,  misunder- 
standing the  doctrine  taught  by  Newton,  opposed  it  and 
endeavored  to  banish  the  term  attraction  from  philoso- 
phy upon  the  ground  of  its  being  a  revival  of  the  ex- 
ploded dogma  of  occult  forces.  The  defense  of  Newton 
was  promptly  undertaken  by  his  followers,  among  whom 
Clarke,  Desaguilei's,  McLauren,  and  Rowning  were  the 
most  conspicuous  in  England,  and  Mauportuis  in  Franco. 
The  lino  of  defense  in  common  to  them  all  was  a  denial 
that  Newton  taught  the  caudal  nature  of  attraction. 
Hear  what  Clarke  says  in  his  reply  to  Leibnitz :  "  It  is 
very  unreasonable  to  call  attraction  anjoccult|  force  after 


Materialism.  21 

it  has  been  so  often  distinctly  declared  that  by  that  term 
we  do  not  mean  to  express  the  cause  of  bodies  tending  to 
each  other,  but  barely  the  effect  of  a  cause,  whatever  be 
or  be  not  the  cause  itself."  Rowning,  in  his  "Natural 
Philosophy,"  says :  "  It  is  to  be  observed  that  when  we 
use  the  word  attraction,  or  gravity,  we  do  not  thereby  de- 
termine a  physical  cause,  but  only  use  those  terms  to 
signify  an  effect."  Maupertuis,  in  vindicating  Newton 
before  the  French  Academy  of  Sciences,  uses  this  lan- 
guage :  "  Many  people  have  been  disgusted  by  the  word 
attraction,  expecting  to  see  the  doctrine  of  occult  forces 
revived  in  philosophy;  but  in  justice  to  Newton,  it 
should  be  remembered  that  he  never  considered  it  as  an 
explanation  of  the  cause  of  the  gravitation  of  bodies  to- 
ward each  other.  He  has  frequently  warned  us  that  he 
employs  this  term  not  to  signify  a  cause,  but  only  an 
effect." 

Now  if  it  be  thus  with  gravity,  universally  admitted 
to  be  the  remotest  generalization  of  the  so-called  natural 
forces,  if  it  stands  but  for  an  effect,  what  shall  we  say  of 
all  other  known  physical  forces  ?  What  else  but  this  : 
"That  they  are  effects  only,  exponents  of  the  existence 
and  efficiency  of  a  cause  back  of  them  all  ?  "  And  as  I 
have  shown  that  an  efficient  cause  is  predicable  only  of 
the  volitions  of  mind,  all  the  forces  of  nature  are  utterly 
impossible  to  our  conception  without  the  postulate  of  a 
self-existent,  ever-active,  ever-ruling,  spiritual  Power, 
apart  from  matter,  the  maker  and  the  upholder  of  all 
things.    Science  cannot  get  rid  of  a  self-existent,  eter- 


22  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOar. 

nal,  absolute,  and  all-powerful  spiritual  Being.  "  Sci- 
ence, no  less  than  religion,  looks  up  to  God." 

Vain  and  absurd  is  the  eifort  of  materialists  to  frame 
a  cosmology  without  the  recognition  of  an  intelligent 
Creator.  In  their  effort  to  do  so  they  demand  the  ex- 
istence of  atoms  endowed  with  mutual  attraction  and 
repulsion,  and  held  in  the  nebular  condition  by  that 
form  of  physical  energy  which  we  call  Heat.  Here, 
then,  at  the  very  outset  we  have  inanimate  matter  under 
the  operation  of  forces.  Where  are  the  forces  to  come 
from  ?  Force,  as  I  have  shown,  is  a  mental  datum,  or  it 
,  is  nothing.  So  that  the  system  breaks  down  ah  initio  if 
there  be  no  intelligent  and  personal  Creator.  And  grant- 
ing even  what  materialists  demand,  it  can  and  has  been 
shown  that  their  methods  o*f  evolving  out  of  the  primi- 
tive star  dust  the  present  condition  of  the  solar  system 
are  replete  with  mathematical  impossibilities  and  logical 
absurdities.  There  is  an  evolution  which  marks  the  suc- 
cessive genesis  of  the  universe  as  it  presents  itself  to 
scientific  research,  indicating  the  preconceived  plan  or 
eternal  pattern,  according  to  which  the  Creator  intended 
to  frame  the  universe,  and  which,  as  it  is  studied  and 
unfolded  and  comprehended,  awakens  in  the  mind  of  the 
adoring  creature  the  highest  conceptions  of  the  wisdom 
and  power  of  Him  who  spake  all  things  into  existence. 

Now,  in  conclusion,  to  what  are  we  brought  by  this 
discussion  ?  To  this :  that  mind  is  the  primal  cause  and 
the  eternal  ruler  of  the  universe  j  and  whether  it  hastens 
on  to  its  purpose,  or  whether  it  lingers  upon  its  way,  is 


MATERIALISM.  23 

a  matter  of  perfect  indifference.  Whether  the  world 
was  created  in  one  moment  or  one  day  or  six  days  or 
six  thousand  years  or  six  millions  of  years  is  of  no  con- 
sequence in  the  discussion  of  the  evidence  that  nature 
gives  of  an  all-powerful  and  personal  Being  who  created 
all  things  according  to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will.  And 
this  discussion  has  brought  us  to  the  true  nature  of 
physical  laws.  They  are  but  generalizations  from  ob- 
served facts,  and  are  only  the  statements  of  the  orders 
of  co-existence  and  succession  as  determined  by  the  Su- 
preme Mind.  They  are  scientific  formularies,  to  express 
in  the  briefest  manner  the  results  of  observations  in  re- 
gard to  facts.  There  is  no  personality,  no  efficiency,  no 
source  of  power  in  these  laws  themselves.  They  are  the 
expressions  of  the  modes  in  which  divine  power  has 
chosen  to  operate.  Their  efficiency  comes  from  Him. 
And  they  are  invariable  because  He  from  whom  they 
have  come  is  without  variableness  or  shadow  of  turning. 
But  does  not  this  drive  us  into  Pantheism — a  Pantheism 
as  gross  as  that  of  Spinoza — ^that  God-intoxicated  man, 
as  Novalis  called  him  ?  By  no  means.  Spinoza  held 
that  the  visible  universe  was  God,  that  all  forms  of  mat- 
ter were  but  attributes  of  God.  But  the  principles  I 
have  laid  down  in  this  discourse,  and  the  arguments 
based  on  them,  lead  to  no  such  results.  We  hold  that 
matter  is  distinct  from  mind,  that  it  is  the  depository  of  the 
forces  originating  in  an  intelligent  will.  That  Will  is  the 
only  source  of  force.  I  have  no  objection  to  the  doctrine 
of  divine  immanence,  provided  you  maintain  the  person- 


24  tiSOUSSloJJS  II*  THEOLOGlf. 

ality  of  God  and  his  entire  separation  from  and  inde- 
pendence of  matter.  There  is  nothing  in  this  doctrine 
contrary  to  either  logic  or  religion.  Nor  am  I  opposed 
to  the  doctrine  of  causal  intermediation,  or,  as  it  is  com- 
monly called,  the  doctrine  of  secondary  causes,  under- 
stood as  the  mere  exponents  of  the  modes  of  God's  oper- 
ations. This  makes  matter  the  depository  of  force,  not 
the  source  of  it.  We  have  only  to  guard  against  attrib- 
uting to  secondary  causes  the  efficiency  inherent  only  in 
primal  causes. 

To  go  farther  into  this  discussion  would  be  a  trespass 
upon  your  patience,  and  I  therefore  close  it,  trusting  that 
enough  has  been  said  to  satisfy  you  of  the  untenableness, 
from  a  scientific  point  of  view,  of  the  doctrines  of  mate- 
rialism. 


CREED  AND  CHARACTER; 
Or,  the  Rationale  of  Faith. 


"  It  makes  no  difference  what  a  man  believes,  provided 
his  life  is  right,"  is  a  sentence  we  often  hear  upon  the 
lips  of  a  certain  class  of  free  thinking  religionists  who 
are  overfond  of  belittling  creeds  and  decrying  dogmas. 
"  What  a  man  does,  not  what  he  believes,''  say  they,  "  is 
the  test  by  which  we  are  to  try  him  in  this  enlightened 
day  of  thought-freedom.  The  day  of  dogmas  is  dead. 
Character,  not  creed,  is  what  we  want." 

Now  there  is  just  enough  of  truth  in  this  statement  to 
make  it  a  misleading  and  dangerous  error.  For  at  heart 
the  statement  is  radically  false.  It  does  make  a  differ- 
ence what  a  man  believes,  and  all  the  difference  that  can 
possibly  be  made.  The  man  that  has  no  creed  has  no 
character.  The  only  honest  man  is  the  man  who  does 
what  he  honestly  believes  to  be  right  and  true,  whose 
life  accords  perfectly  with  his  faith.  Right-doing  is  the 
result  of  right-believing,  not  right-believing  the  result  of 
right-doing.  The  man  whose  faith  is  the  outgrowth  of 
his  life  is  wrong  both  in  faith  and  life  in  ninety-nine 
cases  out  of  a  hxmdred.  Of  couree  every  man's  faith,  as 
to  its  form,  is  more  or  less  influenced  by  his  antecedents 
and  environments ;  but  of  this  wo  are  not  now  speaking. 

The  great  men  of  the  earth  have  all  been  great  believ- 


26  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

ers,  and  their  greatness  of  life  and  character  is  directly 
traceable  to  their  faith ;  and  this  relation  between  faith 
and  life  we  believe  to  be  true  even  where  the  greatness  of 
life  and  character  has  been  in  other  than  distinctly  relig- 
ious lines.  The  man  who  believes  something,  who  knows 
what  he  believes,  who  has  convictions  and  the  courage 
of  his  convictions,  is  the  man  to  whom  we  are  to  look  for 
great  achievements. 

It  was  the  faith  of  Abraham  that  made  him  the  found- 
er of  a  i*ace  the  most  noted  for  its  moral  character  and 
its  achievements  of  all  the  ancient  nations.  It  was  the 
faith  of  Joseph  that  made  him  choose  purity  and  a  dun- 
geon rather  than  guilt  and  freedom,  and  that  made  his 
name  a  synonym  of  innocence  and  virtue,  and  afterward 
made  him  the  saviour  of  his  people.  It  was  the  faith  of 
Moses  that  was  the  secret  of  his  life-work  and  character, 
that  made  him  the  deliverer  of  his  race  and  the  legisla- 
tor of  the  nations.  It  was  the  faith  of  Daniel  that  made 
him  the  noblest  example  of  courage  and  fidelity,  and  one 
of  the  greatest  prime  ministers  the  world  has  ever  seen. 
It  was  the  faith  of  Paul  that  inspired  his  life-work  and 
made  him  the  grandest  missionary  that  ever  carried  the 
gospel  to  the  regions  beyond.  It  was  the  faith  of  "  the 
fishermen  of  Galilee  "  that  made  them  "  turn  the  world 
upside  down."  It  was  the  faith  of  Martin  Luther  that 
made  the  mighty  reformer  of  the  sixteenth  century  and 
saved  the  Christian  Church  from  the  superstitions  and 
immoralities  that  threatened  its  very  life.  It  was  the 
faith  of  John  Wesley  that  made  him  the  greatest  preach- 


Creed  and  charactee.  27 

er  and  reformer  of  modern  times,  and  enabled  him  amid 
persecutions  and  oppositions  to  inaugurate  a  work  that 
to-day  seems  destined  to  envelop  the  earth  with  its  doc- 
trines of  free  grace  and  full  salvation.  The  inspiration 
of  every  great  man's  work  is  his  faith. 

It  was  the  faith  of  Paul  the  persecutor  that  caused 
him  to  make  havoc  with  the  early  Church.  It  was  the 
faith  of  Voltaire,  the  French  infidel,  that  caused  him  to 
lead  an  immoral  life,  that  prostituted  his  intellect  to  base 
purposes,  and  made  his  influence  a  moral  poison  upon 
society.  It  was  the  faith  of  Thomas  Paine  that  made 
him  write  his  "Age  of  Eeason  "  and  send  it  forth  to  sub- 
vert the  faith  and  corrupt  the  life  of  every  unwary 
youth  that  might  be  influenced  by  it.  It  was  the  faith 
of  Baur,  of  Strauss,  and  of  Eenan  that  made  them  spend 
years  in  trying  to  undermine  the  foundations  of  Chris- 
tian faith  in  the  inspired  word  of  God.  It  was  the  faith ' 
of  the  French  Revolutionists  that  led  them  to  attempt 
the  overthrow  of  all  government  and  authority,  and  turn 
peace  and  order  into  anarchy.  It  is  the  faith  of  the  so- 
cialist and  nihilist  that  makes  them  the  worst  and  most 
dangerous  elements  in  society.  It  is  the  faith  of  the 
Jesuits  that  has  caused  them,  though  calling  themselves 
by  the  name  of  Christ,  to  be  instigators  of  crime,  and 
hence  to  be  banished  from  almost  every  country.  A  bad 
faith  makes  a  bad  man.  As  a  man  believes,  so  is  he. 
Can  a  man's  faith  point  one  way  and  his  life  drift  an- 
other ?  Can  a  man  believe  that  there  is  no  God  and  no 
future  life  whose  weal  or  woe  depends  upon  his  moral 


2S       •  DISCUSSIONS  IN  DHEOLOat. 

conduct  here,  and  yet  it  have  no  effect  upon  his  life  and 
character  ? 

"  It  makes  no  difference  what  you  believe,  just  so  your 
life  is  right,"  What  stuff  is  preached  under  this  text 
of  modern  free  thought !  and  sometimes  by  ministers  of 
the  gospel !  Just  as  well  say  that  it  makes  no  difference 
whether  a  tree  has  any  sap  in  it,  or  is  planted  in  the 
earth,  just  so  it  bears  fruit ;  or  that  it  makes  no  difference 
whether  an  engine  has  steam  in  it,  just  so  it  runs  the 
machinery.  Just  as  well  say  that  it  makes  no  difference 
whether  the  fountain  be  pure  or  impure,  just  so  the  stream 
is  pure.  Nay,  verily ;  but  make  the  fountain  pure,  and 
the  stream  will  be  pure.  Faith  is  the  fountain ;  life  and 
character  the  stream.  Make  the  faith  right,  and  the  life 
and  character  will  be  right.  Faith  is  the  condition  of 
fruitfulness  in  the  Christian  life.  The  fruits  of  the  Spirit 
*are  the  fruits  of  faith.  Faith  is  the  motive  power  of  all 
Christian  character  and  life  and  labor.  The  inspiration 
of  every  great  life-work  is  a  faith,  a  strong  faith,  in  some 
great  truth.  Let  a  man  believe  something,  let  him  know 
what  he  believes,  let  him  feel  that  he  must  deliver  his 
message,  let  him  have  the  courage  of  his  convictions,  and 
him  men  wiU  hear. 

A  man  is  never  greater  than  his  faith,  or  better  than 
his  faith.  A  great  faith  makes  a  man  great.  Faith  in 
a  great  truth  inspires  a  man  to  great  deeds.  Eveiy 
great  man  is  necessarily  an  enthusiast.  An  enthusiast 
is  not  a  fanatic.  A  fanatic  is  one  who  is  enthusiastic 
over  an  error  or  over  a  half-truth.    A  great  man  is  one 


CREED  AND  CHARACTER.  29 

who  is  a  believer  in  the  truth,  a  great  truth,  and  has  the 
enthusiasm  of  his  faith.  Every  great  man  that  has  ever 
lived  was  an  enthusiast.  Wesley  was  an  enthusiast. 
Luther  was  an  enthusiast.  Paul  was  an  enthusiast.  Je- 
sus of  Nazareth  was  an  enthusiast.  Every  great  man 
that  has  ever  done  a  great  work  in  the  world  has  been 
an  enthusiast.  But  they  were  all  enthusiasts  over  the 
truth,  and  it  was  what  they  believed  in  that  made  them 
enthusiasts.  A  timid  half-faith  is  the  certain  forerunner 
of  failure.  An  intelligent  enthusiasm  that  is  born  of  a 
mighty  faith  and  of  profound  convictions  is  the  sure 
guarantee  of  success.  Men  will  listen  to  the  man  who 
believes  something,  and  knows  what  he  believes,  who 
has  convictions  and  is  not  afraid  to  state  them.  Such  a 
man  will  be  heard  ;  he  cannot  be  suppressed.  Opposition 
does  not  daunt  him.  Calling  him  a  heretic  and  a  fanatic 
cannot  destroy  the  power  of  his  message  or  the  truth  of 
his  cause.  Faith  may  be  crushed  to  earth  ;  truth  may 
be  crushed  to  earth ;  but  faith  in  truth,  though  ci-ushed 
to  earth,  will  rise  again;  it  must  rise  again  as  sure  as 
there  is  a  God  in  heaven. 

Faith  is  what  is  needed,  a  faith  that  knows  what  it 
believes,  that  has  convictions,  and  imparts  enthusiasm  to 
the  believer.  And  no  other  faith  is  entitled  to  the  name. 
To  such  a  faith  all  things  are  possible.  "All  things  are 
possible  to  him  that  believeth."  "This  is  the  victory 
that  overcometh  the  world,  even  our  faith." 

We  have  said  that  this  principle  holds  true  even  in 
other  than  distinctly  religious  lines.    Take  Columbus, 


30  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

for  example,  in  his  discovery  of  America.  He  believed 
that  across  the  waters  was  another  world.  It  was  a 
faith,  not  a  supposition,  not  an  imagination,  not  a  spec- 
ulation, but  a  faith.  The  world  doubted  and  denied; 
but  faith  can  stand  alone,  can  stand  against  the  world, 
and  overcome  the  world.  His  faith  was  not  to  be 
crushed  by  discouragements  and  oppositions.  By  faith 
he  kept  pleading  with  the  king  and  queen  until  they 
at  length  honored  his  faith  and  sent  him  forth.  By 
faith  he  kept  sailing  westward  when  all  others  had  lost 
heart,  and  the  crew  threatened  to  kill  him  if  he  did  not 
turn  back.  But  faith  triumphed.  It  is  to  the  faith  of 
Columbus  that  we  owe  America.  Many  discoveries  are 
the  result  of  accident.  The  discovery  of  America  was 
the  reward  of  faith.  The  great  discoverers  and  invent- 
ors have  all  been  men  of  faith. 

It  is  a  man's  creed  that  determines  his  character,  not 
his  character  that  determines  his  creed.  A  man's  creed 
is  what  he  believes,  and  as  a  man  believes,  so  is  he.  It 
is  a  man's  faith  that  makes  him  to  be  what  he  is  and  to 
do  what  he  does  in  life.  To  make  a  man's  life  and  char- 
acter and  works  better,  work  first  on  his  faith.  This  is 
the  Scripture  order.  Make  the  tree  good  and  its  fruit 
will  be  good.  Make  the  faith  right  and  the  life  will  be 
right.  But  it  must  he  faith,  not  speculation  or  credulity. 
Credulity  is  belief  without  evidence — that  means  calling 
some  other  man's  faith  yours — it  means  that  you  do  not 
know  what  you  believe  or  why  you  believe.  Faith  is 
belief  upon  evidence — that  means  you  do  your  own 


OBEED  AND  CHABAOTER.  31 

thinking,  that  you  know  what  you  believe  and  why  you 
believe.  Credulity  is  not  faith ;  it  cannot  make  charac- 
ter or  inspire  great  deeds. 

Faith  in  the  great  cardinal  truths  of  revealed  religion 
as  held  by  evangelical  Christianity  has  marked  the 
greatest  characters  and  inspired  the  noblest  lives  of  the 
Christian  Church.  It  may  matter  little  whether  a  man 
believes  in  this  or  that  phase  of  evangelical  Christianity, 
but  it  does  matter  much  whether  or  not  he  believes  in 
the  cardinal  truths  of  Christianity  itself.  These  truths 
are  the  food  upon  which  the  noblest  characters  and  the 
greatest  workers  of  the  Church  have  been  fed  and  nour- 
ished. The  fruits  of  free  thought  in  religion  are  not 
good.  The  history  of  those  who  have  drifted  away 
from  the  evangelical  creeds  of  Christianity  is  a  sad  com- 
mentary on  the  effects  of  free  thought  in  religion.  The 
great  evangelical  creeds  are  the  mighty  vital  and  con- 
serving forces  of  the  Christian  Church.  They  embody 
the  faith  of  the  great  body  of  believers,  and  have  stood 
the  test  of  time,  and  have  borne  the  noblest  fruit.  These 
great  creeds  are  not  true  because  multitudes  have  be- 
lieved in  them,  and  because  they  have  borne  the  test  of 
time;  but  rather  multitudes  have  believed  and  do  still 
believe  in  them,  and  they  have  borne  the  test  of  time 
because  they  are  true,  at  least  in  large  part,  if  not  in 
whole. 

The  history  of  our  own  and  other  Churches  has  not 
been  without  sad  examples  of  the  truth  of  what  is  above 
said,  viz.,  that  those  who  have  drifted  away  from  faith  in. 


32  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

the  creed  of  evangelical  Christianity  have  generally  suf- 
fered deterioration  in  Christian  character,  have  largely 
destroyed  their  usefulness,  have  lost  interest  in  person- 
al religion,  and,  as  a  final  outcome,  have  sometimes  drift- 
ed away  from  all  faith  in  revelation.  Within  the  past 
decade  several  notable  examples  of  this  ruinous  tenden- 
cy of  free-thought  in  religion  have  appeared  in  America, 
representing  different  denominations,  not  to  mention 
many  similar  cases  that  have  occurred  in  England.  Only 
a  few  days  since  it  was  stated  in  the  papers  that  Eev,  Dr. 

,  a  prominent  minister  of  a  sister  denomination, 

had  severed  all  connection  with  his  Church,  and  was 
now  rarely  if  ever  seen  within  any  Christian  house  of 
worship.  A  few  years  ago  he  was  in  good  standing  in 
his  Church,  an  honored  and  useful  minister  of  Christ. 
His  usefulness  and  evangelical  faith  are  gone ;  his  schol- 
arship and  intellectual  ability  remain.  This  change  did 
not  come  about  in  a  day;  it  was  a  growth.  He  began 
by  making  a  single  breach  in  the  creed  of  evangelical 
Christianity.  First,  he  called  in  question  the  doctrine 
of  the  plenary  inspiration  of  Scripture,  then  denied  it, 
and  later  denied  any  and  all  divine  inspiration  in  the 
construction  of  the  written  Word.  But  his  elimination 
of  the  Church  creed  could  not  possibly  stop  here.  One 
after  another  of  the  cardinal  doctrines  of  the  faith  came 
under  review  and  were  ejected  from  his  creed,  until  he 
has  come  now  perhaps  to  hold  very  little  in  common 
with  evangelical  Christians.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  he 
will  go  no  fiu'ther.    Not  all  who  start  as  he  did  go  so 


CREED  AND  CHAEACTER.  33 

far,  while  some  go  further,  landing  in  skepticism  and  in- 
fidelity, and  ending  in  the  utter  loss  of  all  moral  charac- 
ter. This  case,  with  slight  variations,  finds  a  parallel  in 
other  Churches.  When  one  begins  to  drift  away  from 
the  faith  of  evangelical  Christianity,  it  is  not  easy  to 
calculate  what  the  ultimate  effect  will  be  upon  his  own 
character  and  the  characters  of  those  whom  he  influences. 
There  is  no  more  unfavorable  symptom  in  ministerial 
character  than  to  see  a  young  preacher  expending  his 
energies  in  finding  fault  with  his  Church's  creed.  It 
usually  foretokens  degeneracy  of  character  and  loss  of 
power  far  more  than  brilliancy  of  intellect  or  superior 
knowledge.  But  does  the  Church  want  to  force  its 
creed  down  its  ministers  and  members,  and  allow  them 
no  right  of  private  judgment,  and  no  liberty  of  speech  ? 
By  no  means.  No  Church  goes  forth  and  captures  men, 
and  then  undertakes  to  compel  them  to  believe  its  creed. 
But  rather  the  creed  is  that  feature  of  a  Church  which 
draws  to  its  membership  those  who  sympathize  with 
and  believe  in  it,  and  the  connection  is  entirely  volun- 
tary. A  man  who  does  not  believe  in  a  Church's  creed 
has  no  business  joining  that  Church.  Let  him  seek  the 
Church  whose  creed  he  indorses  and  heartily  believes  in. 
But  what  we  are  more  immediately  contending  for  now 
is  loyalty  to  the  creed  of  evangelical  Christianity,  that 
which  is  common,  more  or  less,  to  all  Churches.  And 
what  is  this  creed  whose  cardinal  doctrines  are  the  prop- 
erty of  all  evangelical  Churches  ?  Is  it  not  the  ripened 
wisdom  of  the  Christian  Church  universal  in  interpret- 
3 


34  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

ing  the  word  of  God,  and  explaining  the  way  of  salva- 
tion? Has  the  Christian  Church  been  studying  and 
praying  over  the  Bible  for  all  these  centuries  without 
settling  any  thing  as  to  its  great  cardinal  doctrines? 
Surely  no  sot  of  men,  or  generation  of  men,  in  any  day, 
can  do  the  thinking  and  creed-making  for  all  time  to 
come.  But  while  this  is  admitted,  .it  is  also,  true  that 
the  consensus  of  Christian  thought  for  eighteen  centu- 
ries as  to  what  constitutes  the  great  cardinal  and  essen- 
tial doctrines  of  the  Christian  faith  has  in  it  every  prob- 
ability of  truth,  and  furnishes  every  ground  of  confidence ; 
and  he  who  is  i-ash  enough  to  deny  any  of  these  doc- 
trines does  so  at  the  peril  of  his  own  character  and  use- 
fulness. 

"  One  of  the  results  of  the  Broad  Church  teachings  for 
the  past  thirty  years,"  says  an  English  writer,  "is  the 
tendency  to  go  beyond  the  limits  supposed  to  be  laid 
down  by  the  leaders  of  this  school  of  thought.  We  say 
supposed,  for  the  limits  really  cannot  bo  defined.  Those 
who  have  come  under  the  influence  of  their  teachings 
have  drifted  by  hundreds  into  a  shoreless  sea  of  doubt, 
the  waters  of  whose  uncertainty  have  encompassed  the 
whole  of  their  mental  and  spiritual  life.  It  is  willingly 
conceded  that  the  intention  of  these  teachere  was  a  sin- 
cere and  intelligent  endeavor  to  meet  the  spiritual  dif- 
ficulties that  have  perplexed  many  minds;  but  it  is  af- 
firmed with  equal  confidence  that  for  every  one  that  has 
been  helped  by  them,  at  least  scores  have  been  hindered 
and  unsettled,  and  for  every  man  won  to  peace  and  rest. 


CREED  AND  CHARACTER.  35 

a  large  number  have  perished  in  the  black  waters  of 
modem  skepticism.  Nor  is  this  fatal  issue  the  only  one. 
No  thoughtful  observer  of  the  working  of  this  school  of 
religious  thought  can  have  failed  to  notice  how  the  dis- 
ciples cling  to  their  teachers,  and  herald  them  as  modern 
saviours,  the  pioneers  of  a  new  and  re-adjusted  gospel. 
And  in  proportion  to  the  devotion  of  the  disciples  to 
their  new  creed,  so  is  their  drift  from  any  practical 
Christian  work  or  fellowship  in  lessening  the  over-brim- 
ming cup  of  human  ignorance,  sin,  and  sorrow  that  per- 
meates our  national  life." 

There  are  some  writers  and  would-be  religious  teach- 
ers who  are  fond  of  decrying  Church  creeds  as  narrow, 
as  antagonistic  to  honest  faith,  and  as  unproductive  of  the 
highest  and  best  results  in  the  ethical  life  of  individ- 
uals and  of  the  Church.  They  talk  as  if  the  Church 
allows  no  liberty  of  religious  thought,  as  if  the  only 
honest  faith  was  that  of  the  man  who,  rejecting  the 
Church  creeds,  had  an  original,  though  unformulated, 
creed  of  his  own.  They  talk  as  if  we  should  preach 
the  morals  of  Christianity,  and  not  the  doctrines  found 
in  Church  creeds,  if  we  desire  to  see  the  highest  ideals 
of  Christian  character.  As  for  my  part,  I  cannot  see 
the  narrowness  of  the  Church's  creeds,  or  any  tenden- 
cy toward  the  suppression  of  religious  thought  that 
is  in  sympathy  with  the  spirit  of  evangelical  Chris- 
tianity; but  I  can  see  legitimate  impatience  in  the 
Church  toward  those  who  are  forever  decrying  her 
creed  and  warring  against  her  institutions  and  proclaim- 


36  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

ing  theraselves  as  martyrs  to  their  honest  convictions. 
'Nor  can  I  see  why,  if  I  believe  in  the  creed  of  my 
Church,  ray  faith  is  not  just  as  honest  and  sincere  as  if 
I  had  written  it  myself,  or  as  if  I  had  a  faith  of  my  own 
at  variance  with  the  creed  of  my  Church.  And  I  hesi- 
tate not  to  affirm  that  the  highest  type  of  piety  and  the 
noblest  fruits  of  Christian  life  are  found  among  those 
who  are  devout  believers  of  and  in  full  sympathy  with 
all  the  great  cardinal  doctrines  of  evangelical  Christi- 
anity. 

If  a  Church  creed  becomes  a  substitute  for  one's  faith 
instead  of  the  embodiment  of  it,  it  is  a  different  matter. 
It  is  then  credulity  rather  than  faith.  I  once  knew  a 
man  to  join  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  who  assigned 
as  his  i;eason  for  so  doing  that  "  it  saved  him  the  trouble 
of  thinking;"  by  assenting  to  the  Church  creed,  the 
Church  became  responsible  for  his  faith  and  did  his 
thinking  for  him.  It  is  to  be  feared  that  some  Protest- 
ants are  no  better  believers,  and  make  their  Church 
creed  a  substitute  for  a  real,  living,  intelligent  faith  of 
their  own,  rather  than  an  expression  of  it,  thoughtfully 
accepted.  Such  a  belief  as  that  is  a  blind  faith,  and 
never  yet  developed  Christian  character  or  inspired  a 
great  and  noble  life.  Mere  assent  to  a  creed,  however 
evangelical  and  orthodox  the  creed  may  be,  is  not  faith. 
There  is  more  faith  in  honest  doubt  than  in  such  sub- 
scription as  this  to  creeds.  In  order  to  have  faith  it  is 
quite  as  necessary  to  exercise  reason  as  it  is  to  exercise 
the  faith-faculty  of  the  soul  j  otherwise,  faith  would  be 


CREED  AND  0HARAC5TER.  37 

belief  without  evidence,  rather  than  what  it  really  is,  be- 
lief upon  evidence.  The  creed  that  makes  character 
must  be  a  living,  personal  faith  in  vital  truth,  not  a  sub- 
stitute for  faith  to  save  the  believer  the  trouble  of  think- 
ing for  himself. 

The  most  active  and  aggressive  periods  in  the  history 
of  the  Christian  Church  have  witnessed  the  birth  of 
great  creeds.  The  creed,  however,  has  produced  the  era, 
not  the  era  the  creed — that  is,  activity  in  thinking  and 
believing  creates  activity  in  working.  Activity  in  study- 
ing the  Bible  and  in  discerning  and  appropriating  its 
spiritual  truths  has  always  produced  a  high  state  of 
morals  and  an  active  and  aggressive  age  in  Christian  la- 
bor. The  epochs  of  Church  history  have  been  faith- 
epochs.  Periods  of  degeneracy  in  morals  have  been  pe- 
riods characterized  by  a  dead  faith.  The  great  reforma- 
tions of  Church  history  have  all  been  produced  by  re- 
vivals in  faith  and  doctrine,  and  the  permanence  of  every 
reformation  in  the  world  is  dependent  upon  the  main- 
tenance of  sound  doctrine  and  a  Uving,  personal  faith 
within  the  Church.  And  these  revivals  must  ever  char- 
acterize the  history  of  the  Church.  For  whenever  the 
period  comes  that  men  allow  their  Church  creeds  to  bo- 
come  the  substitutes  for  a  living,  personal,  saving  faith 
of  their  own,  then  another  revival  will  be  needed — a 
faith  revival — and  this  no  matter  how  rational  and  or- 
thodox such  creeds  may  be.  And  because  there  may  be 
a  tendency  in  the  human  mind  to  accept  and  simply  as- 
sent to,  rather  than  to  believe,  a  creed  long  recognized  as 


38  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

true,  it  is  probably  true  that  no  one  generation  can  for- 
mulate a  creed  for  all  succeeding  generations. 

The  success  and  strength  of  Methodism  is  due  most  of 
all  to  its  doctrines,  its  creed,  its  faith.  The  powerful 
personality  and  undying  influence  of  John  Wesley,  the 
fervent  j^iety  and  intense  earnestness  that  have  so  large- 
ly characterized  its  ministry  and  membership,  the  won- 
derfully wise  and  apostolic  system  of  an  itinerant  minis- 
try, have  all  been  elements  of  power,  and  have  helped  to 
achieve  the  mighty  results  that  have  crowned  the  first 
one  hundred  years  of  its  existence.  But  in  studying  the 
philosophy  of  Methodist  history,  none  of  these  factors 
are,  in  our  judgment,  to  be  compared  with  the  evangelic- 
al and  Scriptural  system  of  doctrine  that  has  constitut- 
ed the  creed  of  universal  Methodism.  The  doctrines  of 
free  grace  and  an  unlimited  atonement,  of  human  free 
agency  and  responsibility,  of  the  possibility  and  danger 
of  apostasy,  of  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  and  of  Christian 
holiness,  are  the  doctrines  the  believing  and  preaching 
of  which,  in  conjunction  with  its  other  common  and 
cardinal  doctrines,  have  given  Methodism  its  success  and 
power  in  the  world.  It  was  the  faith  of  John  Wesley 
that  made  him  what  he  was.  It  is  the  faith  of  Method- 
ism that  makes  it  what  it  is,  that  accounts  for  every 
other  element  of  power  within  it.  It  is  its  doctrine  of 
free  grace  and  an  unlimited  atonement  in  Christ  that 
gives  it  its  evangelical  and  missionary  spirit.  It  is  faith 
in  the  doctrine  of  human  free  agency  and  responsibility 
that  has  given  such  earnestness  to  the  religion  of  its 


CREED  AND  CHARACTER.  39 

membership  and  to  the  preaching  of  its  ministry.  The 
doctrine  of  the  possibility  and  danger  of  apostasy  has 
been  the  most  powerful  preventive  of  backsliding.  Faith 
and  experience  in  the  doctrine  of  a  conscious  knowledge 
of  sins  forgiven  is  that  which  has  given  courage  and 
clearness  and  power  alike  to  the  humblest  believer  and 
the  most  eloquent  preacher  in  explaining  to  sinners  the 
way  of  salvation.  Its  doctrine  of  heart-holiness  and 
perfect  love  is  what  has  led  its  membership  to  seek  a 
higher  and  richer  experience  in  the  Christian  life  than 
mere  conversion.  It  is  the  faith  of  Methodism  that 
makes  it  what  it  is.  It  is  the  creed  of  a  Church  that 
makes  its  character. 

After  allj  have  we  not  simply  reached  the  starting 
point  of  Scripture :  "  He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved ; 
he  that  believeth  not  shall  bo  damned  ?  "  Is  not  the  di- 
vine wisdom  of  Christ  shown  in  making  faith  the  one 
great  condition  of  salvation.  The  more  deeply  we  study 
the  philosophy  of  the  plan  of  salvation  the  more  pro- 
foundly will  we  be  convinced  of  the  divine  wisdom  dis- 
played in  making  faith  and  not  works,  belief  and  not 
life,  creed  and  not  character,  the  jirimary  and  cardinal 
condition  of  salvation.  Christianity  must  have  works, 
it  must  bring  forth  life,  it  must  produce  character. 
These  things  are  not  underi-ated  in  the  Christian  system. 
Indeed,  in  an  imi)ortant  sense  it  is  the  whole  object  of 
Christianity  to  produce  them.  But  to  have  demanded 
good  works,  a  moral  life  and  Christian  character  as  the 
primary  condition  of  salvation,  without  previously  pro- 


40  DISCUSSIONS  IK  THBOLOaY. 

viding  and  demanding  faith,  would  have  been  to  de- 
mand fruit  without  providing  the  tree  on  which  it  is  to 
grow,  to  demand  the  accomplishment  of  a  result  without 
providing  the  power  by  which  alone  it  can  be  produced. 
For  faith  is  not  only  the  best  way  to  produce  good 
works,  but  the  only  way  to  produce  them;  and  faith 
that  does  not  bring  forth  good  works  is  no  faith  at  all. 
"  Faith  without  works  is  dead."  A  good  life  can  be  at- 
tained only  by  faith.  A  moral  and  spiritual  life,  involv- 
ing self-denial  to  the  flesh,  is  possible  only  by  the  power 
of  faith,  and  a  belief  that  does  not  conform  the  life  to 
itself  is  not  to  be  recognized  as  any  belief  at  all.  Nor  is 
character  ever  separated  from  creed.  A  man  of  charac- 
ter is  always  a  man  who  has  a  creed,  who  has  convic- 
tions and  the  ability  and  courage  to  state  them.  A  man 
without  a  creed  is  a  man  without  character.  And  so  wo 
affirm  that  there  is  no  more  striking  evidence  of  divine 
wisdom  displayed  in  the  plan  of  salvation  than  is  found 
in  the  fact  that  faith  is  made  the  one  great  cardinal  con- 
dition of  salvation.  Make  a  man's  faith  to  be  just  what 
the  Bible  makes  faith  to  be,  and  his  life  and  character 
will  be  what  Christian  life  and  character  should  be. 

It  is  because  of  this  vital  and  causal  relation  which 
faith  sustains  to  life  and  character  that  gives  it  its  im- 
portance in  the  Christian  system  and  in  the  plan  of  sal 
vation.  If  faith  ended  in  itself  alone,  it  would  have  no 
importance.  Considered  in  themselves  alone,  charactei 
and  life  and  works  are  far  more  important  than  faith 
A  noble  character  and  a  useful  life  are  what  pleases  God, 


obhed  and  character.  41 

not  faith.  It  is  not  said  that  "  faith  pleases  God,"  but 
rather  "  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  Him  " — 
without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  attain  unto  that  holiness 
of  heart,  that  nobility  of  moral  character,  that  useful- 
ness and  consecration  to  His  service,  that  love  to  God 
and  man,  which  are  the  real  things  which  please  Him. 
While  it  is  true  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  alone,  it  is 
none  the  less  true  that  that  faith  by  which  we  are  justi- 
fied is  not  alone,  but  is  accompanied  and  followed  by  all 
the  works  of  faith  and  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  which  to- 
gether constitute  a  noble  character  and  a  useful  life. 
There  are  two  salvations :  one  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Christian  life,  and  the  other  at  the  end,  at  the  judgment 
day.  "He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved"  is  the  first. 
"He  that  endureth  to  the  end  shall  be  saved"  is  the 
second.  At  the  first  salvation  we  are  justified  by  faith, 
and  not  by  works  j  but  at  the  second  we  are  justified  by 
works,  and  not  by  faith.  "By  thy  works  thou  shalt 
then  be  justified,  and  by  thy  works  thou  shalt  then  be 
condemned."  This  is  as  it  should  be.  Works,  life,  char- 
acter is  what  alone  will  stand  the  test  of  the  judgment 
day,  but  these  can  bo  attained  only  by  faith  in  truth,  in 
right,  in  God. 

What  to  believe,  why  to  believe,  and  how  to  believe 
are  the  three  great  questions  concerning  Christian  faith. 
An  eminent  divine  has  said  that  ministers  and  religious 
teachers  err  in  attempting  to  tell  sinners  how  to  believe, 
a  thing  which  they  already  know,  and  concerning  which 
they  need  no  instruction.     By  giving  lengthy  and  elabo- 


42  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

rate  explanations  of  how  to  believe,  a  very  simple  thing 
is  made  to  appear  difficult,  and  the  penitent  mind  is  eon- 
fused  rather  than  enlightened.  There-  is,  we  believe, 
good  ground  for  this  criticism.  The  object  of  this  lect- 
ure, it  will  readily  appear,  has  not  been  to  explain  how 
to  believe,  nor  yet  to  set  forth  what  to  believe,  but  sim- 
ply to  show  why  to  believe — to  show  why  It  is  that 
Christianity  demands,  and  must  necessarily  demand, 
faith  as  the  one  cardinal  condition  of  salvation. 

Away  then  with  this  sophistry  of  modern  religious 
free-thought:  "It  makes  no  difference  what  a  man  be- 
lieves, provided  his. life  is  right."  With  a  show  of  truth 
on  the  surface,  the  statement  has  in  it  the  germs  of  most 
fatal  error,  and  is  radically  false  at  heart.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  makes  all  the  difference  what  a  man  believes. 
A  man  without  a  faith  is  a  man  without  a  purpose  in 
life  and  without  character.  A  man  with  a  bad  faith  is 
a  bad  man  in  life  and  character.  A  man  with  a  timid, 
weak,  wavering  half-faith  is  a  weakling  among  men, 
tossed  about,  with  every  wind  of  doctrine.  Faith  in  er- 
ror leads  to  an  erroneous  life ;  faith  in  truth,  to  a  true 
life ;  faith  in  Christ,  to  a  Christian  life.  As  a  man  be- 
lieves, so  is  he.  But  it  must  be  faith;  not  assent,  not 
credulity,  but  a  living,  personal  faith  in  the  truth,  and 
loyalty  to  that  faith.  "Would  you,  therefore,  make  a 
man's  life  and  character  right,  then  make  his  faith  right, 
and  let  his  life  accord  perfectly  with  that  faith.  This  is 
the  divine  relation  between  creed  and  character.  This 
is  the  rationale  of  faith. 


GERMAN   HIGHER  CRITICISM: 

The  Tubingen  Theory. 


In  connection  with  our  study  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles it  is  necessaiy  to  give  some  attention  to  the  so-called 
Tubingen  Theory  of  that  important  historical  document. 
This  theory  owes  its  origin  to  Dr.  F,  C.  Baur,  a  German 
professor  of  great  intellect  and  imposing  scholarship,  and 
its  name  to  the  Tubingen  University,  where  Baur  was 
professor  of  theology  from  1826  to  his  death  in  1860. 
Both  Baur  and  his  famous  pupil,  David  Friedrich  Strauss, 
author  of  the  Life  of  Jesus  (1835),  studied  and  adopt- 
ed the  philosophy  of  Hegel,  and  became  pantheists. 
With  severe  logicjil  consistency  they  applied  the  Hege- 
lian philosophy  to  the  gospel  and  apostolic  histories,  and 
the  result  was  an  entire  reconstruction  of  the  history  of 
early  Christianity  and  the  Church.  Strauss  applied  his 
destructive  criticism  to  the  gospel  histories  and  origi- 
nated the  so-called  mythical  theory  of  the  Life  of  Je- 
sus, while  Baur's  principal  work  was  with  the  history 
of  apostolic  and  post-apostolic  Christianity,  though,  as 
his  theory  necessitated,  he  had  to  dispose  of  all  the 
writings  of  the  New  Testament.  "He  starts  with  the 
assumption  of  a  fundamental  antagonism  between  Jew- 
ish or  primitive  Christianity,  represented  by  Peter,  and 
Gentile  or  progressive  Christianity,  represented  by  Paul, 


44  DIS0IT88ION8  IN  THEOLOGY. 

and  resolves  all  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  into 
what  he  calls  '  tendency  writings  '  ( Tejidenz-schriften)^ 
which  do  not  give  us  history  pure  and  simple,  but  adjust 
it  to  a  doctrinal  and  practical  aim  in  the  interest  of  one 
or  the  other  party,  or  of  a  compromise  between  the  two." 
The  Epistles  to  the  Eomans,  Galatians,  and  Corin- 
thians, which  are  admitted  to  be  without  doubt  the 
works  of  Paul,  show  the  antagonism  of  the  Pauline  or 
progressive  party  to  the  earlier  and  narrower  Petrine 
or  Jewish  form ;  while  the  Apocalypse  of  John  (com- 
posed in  A.D.  69),  which  is  the  only  authentic  document 
proceeding  from  the  Petrine  party,  exhibits  the  pecul- 
iarities of  older  Jewish  Christianity.  "  The  other  writ- 
ings of  the  New  Testament  are  post-apostoUc  produc- 
tions, and  exhibit  the  various  phases  of  a  unioniitic 
movement,  which  resulted  in  the  formation  of  the  ortho- 
dox Church  of  the  second  and  third  century.  Thus  the 
whole  literature  of  the  New  Testament  is  represented  as 
the  growth  of  a  century  and  a  half,  as  a  collection  of 
polemical  and  irenical  tracts  of  the  apostolic  and  post- 
apostolic  ages,  and  the  rich  spiritual  life  of  faith  and 
love  of  the  apostolic  times  is  resolved  into  a  speculative 
process  of  conflicting  tendencies,"  Baur's  theory,  then, 
more  particularly  stated,  and  especially  in  connection 
with  Acts,  is  as  follows:*  Christ  in  his  teachings  did 
virtually  do  away  with  the  ritual  of  the  old  dispensation, 

*  Compare  Fisher,  "  Supernatural  Origin  of  Christianity  "  (p. 
210),  to  which  the  author  of  this  lecture  acknowledges  indebt- 
edness. 


THE  TUBINGEN  THEORY.  45 

and  left  no  distinction  between  Jews  and  Gentiles.  But 
the  original  disciples  did  not  advance  to  the  conclusion 
which  lay  in  the  teachings  of  their  Master.  They  con- 
tinned  to  believe  that  the  way  of  salvation  was  through 
Judaism,  and  that  the  Gentile  must  enter  the  Church  by 
the  door  of  Judaism,  and  that  the  uncireumcised  had  no 
part  in  the  kingdom  of  their  Messiah. 

Only  the  Apostle  Paul,  who  came  later,  saw  that  the 
old  rites  were  done  away  by  the  very  nature  of  the  true 
religion,  and  that  the  Gentile  stood  on  an  equality  with 
the  Jew,  faith  being  the  sole  requirement.  He  held  that 
circumcision  and  the  ritual  were  no  longer  admissible, 
because  they  implied  some  other  object  of  reliance  than 
Christ  and  some  other  condition  than  faith.  Thus  there 
was  a  radical  difference  in  doctrine  between  Peter  and 
the  Jerusalem  Christians,  on  the  one  hand,  and  Paul 
and  his  followers,  on  the  other.  Not  only  so,  there 
was  a  personal  disagreement  and  estrangement  between 
these  two  apostolic  leaders,  there  was  between  the  two 
branches  of  the  Church  a  radical  opposition  in  principle, 
and  there  grew  up  two  antagonistic  types  of  Christiani- 
ty, two  divisions  of  the  Church,  separate  from  each  oth- 
er and  unfriendly  to  each  other.  Such  was  the  state  of 
things  at  the  end  of  the  apostolic  age. 

Then  followed  attempts  to  reconcile  the  two  branches, 
and  to  unite  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christianity  into  one. 
With  this  view  conciliatory  and  compromising  books 
were  written  in  the  name  of  the  apostles.  The  book  of 
Acts,  for  example,  written  in  the  second  century  by  a 


46  DISCUSSIONS  in  theoloqt. 

Pauline  Christian,  is,  as  Dr.  Schaff  says,  according  to 
Baur's  view,  a  Catholic  irenicon,  which  harmonizes 
Jewish  and  Gentile  Christianity  by  liberalizing  Peter 
and  Judaizing  Paul  and  concealiqg  the  difference  be- 
tween them.  The  author  represents  Paul  as  circumcis- 
ing Timothy  (Acts  xvi.  3),  as  conforming  to  the  practice 
of  shaving  his  head*  at  the  expiration  of  a  vow  (Acts 
xviii.  18),  and  as  participating  in  ceremonies  concerning 
a  vow  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  xxi.  24-26).  Peter,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  represented  by  the  author  of  Acts  as  ac- 
knowledging the  rights  of  the  Gentiles,  and  as  holding 
the  same  views  as  Paul  (Acts  xv.  7-11).  He  receives 
Cornelius  into  the  Church  without  circumcision  (Acts  x. 
1-48 ;  xi.  3 ;  especially  x.  34),  and  eats  with  Gentiles. 
But  we  quote  the  language  of  Baur  himself: 
It  has  been  shown  incontrovertibly  by  recent  investigations  f 
that  the  Acts  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  purely  historical  work, 
but  only  as  a  presentation  of  the  history  following  a  certain 
definite  tendency.  The  true  aim  of  the  work,  then,  must  have 
been  to  carry  back  the  solution  of  the  questions  which  were 
then  the  object  of  universal  interest,  to  the  point  of  the  discus- 
sion of  the  Apostle  Paul's  relation  to  the  older  apostles.  It,  how- 
ever, decidedly  asserts  its  Pauline  character  in  two  particulars. 
It*  holds  fast  the  principle  of  Paulinism,  the  universal  scope  of 
Christianity  free  from  the  law,  by  the  side  of  Jewish  Christiani- 
ty.   It  carries  this  universalism  through  all  the  stages  of  the 

*  Though  some  hold,  and  Meyer  is  among  them,  that  it  was  Aquila,  and 
not  Paul,  who  shaved  his  head  on  this  occasion,  as  the  order  of  the  words 
will  allow.  See  the  Greek  of  the  passage,  Acts  xviii.  18,  and  Meyer  and 
Hackett  in  loc. 

t  Here  he  refers  to  Schneckenburger's  work  on  the  Acts,  to  his  own  Pctu- 
lus  I.,  p.  4,  and  to  Zeller  on  Acts.  . 


THE  TUBINGEN  THEORY.  •  47 

history  which  it  deals  with,  beginning  with  the  words  which  it 
puts  in  the  motdh  *  of  the  Lord  before  his  ascension  about  the  ut- 
termost parts  of  the  e^rth  (i.  18),  and  ending  with  the  final  dec- 
laration of  the  Apostle  Paul,  that  the  message  of  salvation  is  sent 
to  the  Gentiles  (xxviii.  18).  In  the  second  place,  it  insists  on 
the  conditions  without  the  recognition  of  which  it  was  unpossi- 
ble  for  Christianity  to  fulfill  its  universal  mission. 

"We  must  take  up  our  position  at  this  central  point  of  the 
Acts,  its  Paulinism,  in  order  to  appreciate  aright  the  aim. and 
character  of  the  work.  In  the  two  points  we  have  mentioned  it 
makes  no  compromise  of  Pauline  principles.  In  every  thing  re- 
lating to  the  person  of  the  apostle,  however,  it  is  lax  and  full  of 
concessions.  If  we  compare  the  account  which  the  Acts  gives 
us  of  his  character  and  conduct  with  the  picture  which  he  gives 
us  of  himself  in  his  own  writings,  we  find  a  very  remarkable 
contrast  between  the  Paul  of  the  Acts  and  the  Paul  of  thfe  Pau- 
line writings.  According  to  the  Acts,  he  made  concessions  to 
the  Jewish  Christians,  which,  according  to  his  own  clear  and 
distinct  enunciation  of  his  principles,  it  is  impossible  he  should 
have  made.*  On  the  other  side  we  find  the  same  phenomenon. 
The  Acts  presents  Peter  to  us  in  a  light  in  which  we  can  no 
longer  recognize  him  as  one  of  the  chief  representatives  of  Jeru- 
salem. We  are  thus  obliged  to  think  *  that  the  immediate  object 
for  which  the  Acts  was  written  was  to  draw  a  parallel  between 
the  two  apostles,  in  which  Peter  should  appear  in  a  Pauline  and 
Paul  in  a  Petrine  character.  In  the  doctrine  of  their  discourses 
and  in  their  mode  of  action  as  apostles  they  not  only  agree 
with  each  other,  but  appear  to  have  actually  changed  parts.  Be- 
fore Paul  appears  at  all  in  the  book  f  Peter  is  made  to  baptize 
the  first  Gentile,  Cornelius,  with  the  consent  of  the  Church  at 

*  The  italics  are  mine.— G.  A. 

fThis  iH  a  mistake.  Paul  appears  in  chapter  ix.,  while  the  account  of 
Peter's  baptism  of  Cornelius  is  given  in  chapter  x.    Comp.  especially  ix.  16. 


48  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

Jerusalem,  while  Paul  performs  the  rite  of  circumcision  on  Tim- 
othy, the  Gentile  Christian,  out  of  regard  for  his  Jewish  fellow- 
countrymen,  and,  in  general,  conducts  himself  as  an  Israelite 
pious  in  the  law.  Even  amidst  the  most  pressing  business  of 
his  apostolic  labors  he  does  not  neglect  to  make  the  customary 
journey  to  Jerusalem ;  he  undertakes  a  vow  and  becomes  a  Naz- 
arite  with  the  express  object  of  refuting  the  calumny  tliat  he 
taught  the  people  to  abandon  the  law ;  he  has  so  high  a  respect 
for  the  theocratic  privileges  of  his  people  that,  from  first  to  last, 
he  always  preaches  first  to  the  Jews,  and  only  turns  to  the  Gren- 
tiles  when  compelled  by  their  unbelief  and  constrained  by  the 
divine  commands  to  do  so.  The  two  apostles  are  even  made 
parallel  with  each  other  in  respect  to  their  call :  Peter,  as  well 
as  Paul,  has  a  vision,  in  which  he  is  charged  with  the  apostolate 
to  the  Grentiles. 

The  only  possible  explanation  of  all  this  is  that  the  &cts  of 
the  case  were  deliberately  altered  in  accordance  with  a  certain 
tendency.  This  tendency  is  conciliatory  or  irenical.  With  this 
end  not  only  were  Paul  and  his  cause  to  be  recommended  to 
Jewish  Christians,  but  such  a  conception  of  Christianity  and  of 
the  doctrine  of  Paul  were  to  be  made  current  as  should  remove 
or  conceal  the  most  offensive  aspects  of  Paulinism  and  render  it 
more  fit  for  that  union  with  Jewish  Christianity  to  which  the 
author  aspired.  The  Acts  is  thus  an  attempt  at  conciliation,  the 
overture  of  peace  of  a  member  of  the  Pauline  party,  who  sought 
to  purchase  the  recognition  of  Gentile  Christianity  on  the  part 
of  the  Jewish  Christians  by  concessions  made  to  Judaism  on  his 
side.  It  deserves  to  be  specially  noted  how  carefully  the  book 
refrains  from  touching  the  irritating  element  in  the  history  of 
either  apostle.  For  example,  it  passes  over  in  complete  silence 
the  conflict  at  Antioch,  of  which  the  Clementines  [ !  ]  had  so 
lively  a  remembrance,  and  does  not  even  mention  Titus,  who, 
according  to  Galatians  ii.  1,  caused  such  offense  to  the  Christians 


THE  TUBINGEN  THEORY.  49 

of  Jerusalem.  But  instead  of  these  two  scenes  it  mentions  the 
strife  with  Barnabas  as  if  this  much  less  important  incident 
had  been  all  that  was  wrong  at  the  time  (!).  It  looks  as  if  the 
writer  felt  it  necessary  to  make  up  in  some  way  for  his  silence 
about  the  refiasal  to  circumcise  Titus,  when  in  place  of  that  in- 
cident he  gives  the  circumcision  of  Timothy,  with  regard  to 
which  Paul  was  so  ready  and  willing  to  meet  the  wishes  of  the 
Jews. 

And  how  careful  the  Acts  is  to  bring  Paul  in  contact  with  the 
older  apostles  at  every  opportunity,  thus  suggesting,  of  course, 
that  a  truly  brotherly  relation  had  existed  between  him  and 
them  !  AVhat  the  Acts  desired  to  have  people  believe  did  actu- 
ally come  to  be  believed,  and  the  belief  never  afterward  wavered. 
This  proves  how  well  the  author  of  the  Acts  understood  the  age 
he  lived  in,  and  how  accurate  an  estimate  he  formed  of  what  it 
was  necessary,  for  the  general  good  of  the  Church,  to  keep  hold 
of.  These  same  considerations  were  at  work  also  in  the  produc- 
tion of  a  number  of  those  Epistles  which  bear  apostolic  names, 
but  which  we  are  obliged  to  pronounce  i)seudonymous.  No 
other  book  of  the  New  Testament,  however,  allows  of  so  con- 
vincing a  demonstration  of  the  tendency  under  which  it  was 
written  as  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.* 

The  Acts,  then,  according  to  this  theory,  is  a  produc- 
tion of  the  second  century,  in  which  fiction  is  ingeniously 
woven  in  with  facts  in  the  hope  thai  a  mutual  friendliness 
between  the  respective  partisans  of  the  rival  apostles 
might  be  brought  about.  Such  is  the  theory,  and  there 
is  certainly  no  vagueness  or  ambiguity  about  it.  It  is 
startling  in  its  baldness,  its  boldness,  and  its  remorseles.^ 

*  "  Church  History  of  the  First  Three  Centuries  "  (pp.  132-137). 
London  edition,  1878. 
4 


50  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

destructiveness.  Let  us  inquire  into  the  basis  on  which 
it  is  founded  and  the  materials  out  of  which  it  is  con- 
structed. We  shall  find  in  it  a  good  example  of  the 
methods  and  the  madness  of  that  fierce  criticism  which 
has  turned  poor  Germany  upside  down,  and  would  fain 
turn  Christianity  upside  down. 

It  is  a  matter  of  historical  fact  that  in  the  second 
century  Jewish-Christian  and  anti-Jewish-Christian  par- 
ties had  been  developed  and  were  in  existence.  The  first 
of  these  was  called  the  Ebionite  sect.  "  These,"  says 
Lightfoot  *  "  not  content  with  observing  the  Mosaic  or- 
dinances themselves,  maintained  that  the  law  was  bind- 
ing on  all  Christians  alike,  and  regarded  Gentile  Chris- 
tians as  impure  because  they  refused  to  conform.  They 
branded  Paul  as  an  apostate,  and  pursued  his  memory 
with  bitter  reproaches.  In  their  theology,  also,  they 
were  far  removed  from  the  Catholic  Church,  holding 
our  Lord  to  be  a  mere  man,  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary. 
These  Ebionites  were  the  direct  spiritual  descendants  of 
those  ^ false  brethren,'  the  Judaizers  of  the  apostolic  age, 
who  first  disturbed  the  peace  of  the  Church  at  Antioch, 
and  then  dogged  St.  Paul's  footsteps  from  city  to  city." 
They  had  a  gospel  of  their  own,  called  the  "  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews  "  {sbayyikiov  xaff  ^E^paiouq,  not  now  extant,  but 
referred  to  and  quoted  by  the  fathers),  which,  from  the 
remains  which  are  found  in  these  quotations,  bore  a  close 
resemblance  to  our  Matthew,  and  was  in  all  probability 
our  Matthew  altered  and  amplified,  as  a  comparison  of  a 
*  "  Commentary  on  Galatians,"  p.  159. 


THE  TUBINGEN  THEORY.  51 

quotation  from  the  "  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,"  given  in 
Origen's  "  Commentary  on  Matthew,"  will  show  * 

On  the  other  hand,  there  arose  also,  in  the  second  cent- 
ury, parties  calling  themselves  Pauline,  and  repudiating 
all  forms,  rites,  associations  connected  with  Judaism. 
Such  a  sect  was  founded  by  Mareion,  a  native  of  Pon- 
tus,  who  went  to  Rome  about  140  A.D.  Neander,  says 
Fisher,  represents  that  the  love  and  compassion  of  Christ 
had  struck  deep  into  Mareion' s  soul.  But,  ignoring  the 
justice  of  God,  he  conceived  that  the  representations  of 
God  in  the  Old  Testament  are  inconsistent  with  the 
character  and  teachings  of  Christ.  All  the  apostles  ex- 
cept Paul  seemed  to  him  to  be  entangled  in  Old  Testa- 
ment views,  and  to  have  pei*verted  the  doctrine  of  Jesus. 
Hence  the  expressions  in  Paul  about  the  Christian's  free- 
dom from  the  law  and  about  free  grace,  imperfectly  un- 
derstood by  Mareion,  fell  in  with  the  current  of  his 
feelings.  Hence,  though  starting  from  a  practical  and 
not  a  speculative  point  of  view,  he  developed  a  Gnostical 
theory,  according  to  which  the  god  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  a  demiurge  inferior  to  the  father  of  Jesus. 
He  shaped  his  scriptural  canon  to  suit  his  doctrinal  sys- 
tem. The  Gospel  of  Luke,  as  written  by  a  companion 
of  Paul,  and  as  bringing  out  the  Pauline  doctrine,  he  re- 
garded with  favor.  But,  according  to  the  unanimous  tes- 
timony of  the  fathers,  he  abridged  and  mutilated  even 
this  Gospel  in  order  to  conform  it  to  his  own  system.    He 

*It  corresiKjnds  to  Matthew  xix.  16  j?".,  and  is  about  the  rich 
young  ruler. 


52  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

took  similar  liberties  with  the  Pauline  Epistles,  which 
he  also  received.  He  may  have  fancied  that  he  was  re- 
storing these  documents  to  their  original  form,  but  he 
changed  them  according  to  his  own  a  priori  notions  of 
what  Christ  and  his  apostles  must  have  taught.  These 
are  examples  of  parties  that  grew  up  in  the  second  cent- 
ury, but  it  remains  to  be  proven,  as  Baur  assumes,  that 
these  or  any  similar  parties  constituted  the  Church,  or 
were  even  recognized  and  fellowshiped  by  the  Catholic 
Church.  On  the  contrary,  though  the  onus  probandi  is 
upon  the  allcger  and  not  upon  the  denier  of  a  projjosi- 
tion.  Bishop  Lightfoot,  in  his  scholarly  essay  on  St.  Paul 
and  the  Three,^  has  proved  that  the  Church  of  the  first 
and  second  century  was  not  Ebionite.f  So  far  from  it, 
these  parties,  Ebionites  on  the  one  hand  and  Marcionites 
on  the  other,  were  not  included  in  the  Church,  but 
counted  heretical  by  the  Church.  See  that  masterly 
discussion. 

Baur,  however,  with  his  preconceived  Hegelian  and 
pantheistic  notions,  looking  for  some  basis  upon  which 
to  found  a  denial  of  the  apostolic  history,  as  his  pupil 
Strauss  had  already,  to  the  satisfaction  of  his  party,  de- 
molished the  foundations  of  the  gospel  history,  and  find- 

*  In  his  "  Commentary  on  Galatians." 

t  It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  the  Socinians,  and  notably  Dr. 
Priestley,  held,  much  earlier,  the  view  of  Baur  that  the  prim- 
itive Church  was  Ebionite,  especially  as  touching  Christ's  di- 
vinity, and  that  modern  Unitarianism  comes  from  ancient  Ebi- 
onism. 


THE  TUBINGEN  THEORY.  53 

ing  the  existence  of  these  parties  in  the  second  cent- 
ury, assumes  that  these  parties  constituted  the  Church, 
and  then  infers  that  this  same  antagonism  and  division 
existed  also  in  the  apostolic  Church  in  the  form  of  Paul- 
inism  and  Petrinism.  Of  this  view  of  the  condition  of 
the  apostolic  Church  he  professes  to  find  proof  in  the 
four  Epistles  of  Paul  which  he  accepts  as  genuine — 
namely,  Galatians,  First  and  Second  Corinthians,  and 
Romans. 

Let  us  now  examine,  first,  the  ground  of  his  assump- 
tion that  these  Jewish  and  anti-Jewish  parties  constitut- 
ed the  Church  in  the  second  century,  and  secondly  his 
supposed  proof  of  the  prior  existence  of  these  parties  in 
the  apostolic  Church.  He  gets,  then,  his  notions  of  the 
Christianity  of  the  second  century  mainly  from  a  theo- 
logical romance  composed  by  some  partisan  Ebionite  of 
Rome  in  the  second  century,  which  has  not  even  the 
dignity  of  being  anonymous,  but  which  falsely  pretends 
to  emanate  from  Clement,  the  fii-st  Bishop  of  the  Ro- 
man Church  after  the  apostles,  and  forever  weai*8  the 
brand  of  the  "PseM<io-Clementine  Homilies."  Impelled  * 
by  a  love  of  the  truth,  this  Pseudo-Clement  journeys  to 
the  East,  and  is  introduced  to  Peter,  whose  instruction 
fully  satisfies  his  mind,  and  who  is  represented,  instead 
of  Paul,  as  the  real  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  and  the  found- 
er and  first  bishop  of  the  Roman  Church.  Paul,  though 
not  mentioned  by  name,  is  described,  is  made  the  adver- 
sary of  Peter,  and  is  regarded  with  hostility.     Peter  is 

♦This  account  of  this  book  is  taken  partly  from  Fisher. 


54  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

represented  as  teaching  the  doctrines  and  recommending 
the  practices  of  the  Ebionites* 

"This  spurious  production,"  says  Dr.  Fisher,  'Hhe 
work  of  an  unknown  author,  and  abounding  in  fantastic 
anti-Christian  ideas  which  could  never  have  gained  the 
consent  of  any  sober-minded  Christian,  is  made  by  Baur 
a  text-book  for  the  opinions  of  the  Church  generally  in 
the  second  century.  Its  authority  is  deemed  sufficient 
to  outweigh  the  testimony  of  approved  writers  who 
have  always  been  depended  on  by  scholars  of  all  theo- 
logical schools.  Because  this  fantastic  romance  is  Ebi- 
onite  and  anti-Pauline,  such  must  have  been  the  prevail- 
ing Christianity  of  the  time."  * 

Dr.  Schaff  says :  "  The  Ebionite  author  of  the  "  Pseudo- 
Clementine  Homilies  "  and  the  "  Gnostic  Marcion  "  as- 
sumed an  irreconcilable  antagonism  between  Jewish  and 
Gentile  Christianity,  just  as  Baur  and  the  Tubingen 
school  have  assumed  in  modern  times;  and  in  the  eyes 
of  this  Tubingen  criticism  these  wild  heretics  arc  better 
historians  of  the  apostolic  age  than  the  author  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles."t 

Satisfying  himself  on  such  authority  (!)  that  this  was 
the  state  of  the  Church  in  the  second  century,  Baur  was 
led  by  certain  passages  in  the  First  and  Second  Epistles 

*  This  work,  the  "  Pseudo-Clementine  Homilies,"  is  translated 
into  English  and  is  given  in  full  with  notes  in  Vol.  VIII.,  pp. 
222-346,  of  the  "  Ante-Mcene  Fathers,"  published  by  the  Chris- 
tian Literature  Company,  35  Bond  Street,  New  York. 

t "  Church  History,"  Vol.  I.,  p.  211. 


THE  TUBINGEN  THEORY.  55 

to  the  Corinthians  and  in  that  to  the  Galatians  to  con- 
clude that  this  was  the  state  of  the  Church  in  the  apos- 
tolic age  also,  and  as  the  statements  and  representations 
of  the  book  of  Acts  conflict  with  this  view  and  with  his 
interpretation  of  Paul's  Epistles,  he  concludes  that  the 
book  of  Acts  must  be  a  forgery  gotten  up  in  the  second 
century  by  some  pacific  Pauline  Christian  to  reconcile 
the  two  belligerent  parties. 

In  considering  this  theory  of  the  book  of  Acts  two 
questions  present  themselves : 

1.  Can  the  passages  in  St.  Paul's  acknowledged  Epistles 
which  are  alleged  to  prove  that  his  character,  doctrines, 
and  deportment  are  inconsistent  with  the  representations 
of  him  contained  in  the  book  of  Acts  be  explained  in  a 
way  to  show  that  they  are  not  inconsistent  with  those 
representations,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  they  confirm 
those  representations? 

2.  Are  the  contents  of  the  book  of  Acts  such  as  they 
might  be  expected  to  bo  on  the  supposition  that  it  was 
written  for  the  purpose  alleged  by  Baur  ? 

Though  *  Christ  himself  observed,  as  a  Jew,  the  ritual 
and  all  the  requirements  of  the  Mosaic  law,  yet  he  both 
implicitly  and  explicitly  authorized  the  conclusion  that 
in  the  new  era  which  he  was  introducing  the  ceremonies 
of  the  law  would  no  longer  have  place,  nor  be  required. 
For  example,  he  declared  that  not  what  "  goeth  into  the 
mouth  defileth  a  man ;  but  that  which  cometh  out  of  the 

*  On  this  account  of  the  extension  of  the  gospel  to  the  Gren- 
tiles,  see  Fisher,  "  Supernatural  Origin  of  Christianity." 


56  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

mouth.  .  .  .  Those  thingswhieh  proceed  out  of  the  mouth 
come  forth  from  the  hearty  and  they  defile  the  man.  .  .  , 
But  to  eat  with  unwashen  hands  defileth  not  a  man."  In 
his  eyes  forms  had  no  inherent  value  and  no  abiding  ex- 
istence. He  says  to  the  woman  of  Samaria :  "  The  time 
Cometh,  and  now  is,  when  the  true  worshipers  shall  wor- 
ship in  spirit  and  in  truth ;  for  God  is  a  Spirit,  and  seek- 
eth  such  to  worship  him." 

He  laid  down  great  principles,  and  did  not  define  ex- 
actly what  course  the  Gentiles  were  to  take  with  refer- 
ence to  the  Mosaic  ritual,  or  what  was  to  become  of 
ceremonial  Judaism.  These  things  the  apostles  were 
left  to  learn  by  providential  events  and  the  inward  illu- 
mination of  the  Spirit.  He  left  the  Church  to  be  edu- 
cated up  to  the  point  of  seeing  that  these  things  were 
superfluous.  But  the  twelve  Apostles  and  the  infant 
Church  at  Jerusalem  seem  to  have  had  no  thought  of 
dispensing  with  circumcision  and  the  other  requirements 
of  the  ritual. 

Paul,  on  the  contrary,  on  account  of  the  peculiarity  of 
his  experience  and  by  means  of  his  deep  insight  and  the 
logical  force  of  his  mind,  together  with  special  enlight- 
enment from  above,  discerned  most  clearly  that  faith,  and 
faith  alone,  is  the  condition  of  salvation,  and  that  to  make 
the  soul  depend  for  pardon  upon  legal  observances  along 
with  faith  is  to  set  the  ground  of  salvation,  partially  at 
least,  outside  of  Christ,  and  to  found  the  Christian's  hope 
on  self-righteousness  instead  of  his  merits.  He  went 
straight  to  the  inevitable  inference  that  the  ritual  sys- 


TfiE  TUBINGEN  THEORY.  ^1 

tern  is  not  to  be  observed  as  a  means  of  salvation,  and  is 
in  no  sense  obligatory  on  the  Gentiles. 

These  principles  he  announces,  expounds,  and  defends 
with  profound  conviction,  vehement  eloquence,  and  con- 
clusive logic,  especially  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Komans  and 
that  to  the  Galatians.  It  is  in  the  latter  that  we  find  the 
following  strong  statements:  "I  do  not  frustrate  the 
grace  of  God :  for  if  righteousness  come  by  the  law,  then 
Christ  died  in  vain."  "That  no  man  is  justified  by  the 
law  in  the  sight  of  God,  it  is  evident."  "  The  law  was 
our  school-master  to  bring  us  unto  Christ,  .  .  .  but 
after  that  faith  is  come,  we  are  no  longer  under  a  school- 
master." "  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek :  .  .  .  for 
ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus."  "Behold,  I  Paul  say 
unto  you,  that  if  ye  be  circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit 
you  nothing.  For  I  testify  again  to  every  man  that  is 
circumcised,  that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law. 
Christ  is  become  of  no  effect  unto  you,  whosoever  of  you 
are  justified  by  the  law."  "  For  in  Christ  Jesus  neither 
circumcision  availeth  any  thing,  nor  uncircumcision  ;  but 
faith  which  worketh  by  love."  Moreover,  we  learn  from 
Galatians  that  he  refused  to  allow  Titus  to  be  circum- 
cised. 

In  Komans,  the  following  :  "  If  thou  be  a  breaker  of  the 
law,  thy  circumcision  is  made  uncircumcision. 
Shall  not  uncircumcision  which  is  by  nature,  if  it  fulfill 
the  law,  judge  thee,  who,  though  in  possession  of  the 
letter  and  of  circumcision,  dost  transgress  the  law?" 
"For  that  is  not  circumcision  which  is  outward  in  the 


58  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

flesh,  but  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spir- 
it, and  not  in  the  letter."  Again,  in  1  Corinthians,  he  says : 
"  Circumcision  is  nothing,  and  uneircumcision  is  nothing, 
but  the  keeping  of  the  commandments  of  God." 

But  notwithstanding  he  held  these  advanced  views 
concerning  circumcision  and  the  law,  there  is  no  evi- 
dence that  Paul  sought  to  dissuade  the  Jews  from  ob- 
serving the  ritual.  He  only  rejected  the  doctrine  that 
the  observance  of  the  law  was  essential  to  salvation,  or 
obligatory  upon  the  Gentile  converts.  But  his  opposi- 
tion to  the  law  extended  no  further.  On  the  contrary, 
he  himself  says :  "  To  the  Jews  I  became  as  a  Jew."  He 
respected  their  national  feelings  and  customs.  Hence  he 
found  no  difficulty  in  taking  upon  himself  the  vow  which 
James  recommended  as  a  visible  proof  that  the  charges 
made  against  him  of  persuading  the  Greek-speaking  Jews 
to  forsake  the  Mosaic  law  and  to  abandon  circumcision 
were  false,  and  that  he  was  not  a  traitor  to  his  people. 

Let  us  examine  now  those  Epistles  which  Baur  ac- 
cepts as  genuine,  and  which  are  said  to  show  that  St. 
Paul's  real  views  were  irreconcilably  opposed  to  those 
representations  of  him  which  we  find  in  the  book  of  Acts. 
Baur  affirms  that  there  was  at  Corinth,  as  shown  in  the 
Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  a  party  claiming  to  be  the 
disciples  of  Peter,  and  holding  an  attitude  of  hostility  to 
Paul  and  his  doctrine.  But  there  were  other  parties  in 
the  Corinthian  Church  also — the  Christ-party  and  the 
ApoUos-party — and  there  is  no  more  proof  that  Peter 
headed  or  encouraged  or  even  knew  of  this  party  than 


THE  TUBINGEN  THEORY.  59 

there  is  that  Apollos  championed  the  party  calling  itself 
by  his  name. 

Again,  so  far  is  St.  Paul  from  evincing  in  the  Epistles 
to  the  Corinthians  any  hostility  or  antagonism  to  the 
other  apostles,  as  is  alleged,  he  represents  them  as  fel- 
low-laborers in  a  common  cause.  To  be  sure,  he  says  he 
was  "  not  a  whit  behind  the  very  chiefest  apostles."  (2 
Cor.  xi.  5.)  Yet  this  is  not  saying,  nor  does  it  imply, 
that  they  were  not  apostles  or  that  they  Aaught  false 
doctrine.  He  says,  on  the  contrary:  "For,  I  think, 
God  hath  set  forth  us  the  apostles  last  of  all,  as  men 
doomed  to  death :  for  we  arc  made  a  spectacle  unto  the 
world,  and  to  angels,  and  to  men.  .  .  .  We  both 
hunger,  and  thirst,  and  are  naked,  .  .  .  and  have 
no  certain  dwelling-place.  .  .  .  We  are  made  as  the 
filth  of  the  world,  the  offscouring  of  all  things,  even  un- 
til now."  (1  Cor.  iv.  9-13.)  Thus  associating  the  other 
apostles  with  himself  in  noble  service  and  self-sacrifice. 

Again,  in  his  enumeration  of  the  appearances  of  Christ 
after  his  resurrection,  ho  says  in  a  way  not  to  depreciate 
the  other  apostles,  but  himself:  "And  last  of  all  he  was 
seen  of  me  also,  as  of  one  born  out  of  due  time.  For  I 
am  the  least  of  the  apostles,  that  am  not  meet  to  be 
called  an  apostle,  because  I  pcraecuted  the  Church  of 
God."     (1  Cor.  XV.  8,  9.) 

In  1  Corinthians,  eighth  chapter,  Paul  lays  down  and 
expounds  the  principle  that  wo  are  to  consider  the  weak- 
ness of  the  weaker  brethren,  and  to  deal  with  their  igno- 
rance and  superstitious  scruples  in  a  spirit  of  love  and 


60  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THBOLOG*. 

patience  and  helpfulness.  This  is  precisely  the  principle 
in  accordance  with  which  he  caused  Timothy  to  be  cir- 
•cumcised  and  agreed  to  participate  in  the  vow,  as  nar- 
rated in  the  book  of  Acts ;  and  the  exposition  and  de- 
fense of  this  principle  are  all  the  stronger  here  because 
brought  out  incidentally  and  in  the  natural  course  and 
order  of  the  Epistle. 

In  another  portion  of  this  same  Epistle,  Paul  not  only 
defends  this  principle  and  the  duty  of  accommodating 
ourselves  in  unessential  matters  to  the  weak  consciences 
of  our  weaker  brethren,  but  he  explicitly  and  unequiv- 
ocally declares  that  it  was  his  own  practice.  What 
could  be  more  to  the  point  than  the  following  words? 
"To  the  Jews  I  became  as  a  Jew,  that  I  might  gain 
the  Jews ;  to  them  that  are  under  the  law.,  as  under  the  law, 
though  not  being  myself  under  the  law,  that  I  might 
gain  them  that  are  under  the  law"  (1  Cor.  ix.  20.)  And 
yet  in  the  face  of  this  language,  in  an  Epistle  which  Baur 
acknowledges  as  one  of  St.  Paul's,  he  persists  in  declar- 
ing that  "  according  to  the  Acts  Paul  made  concessions 
to  the  Jewish  Christians  which  he,  according  to  the  prin- 
ciples proclaimed  by  himself  in  his  Epistles  in  the  most 
decided  manner,  cannot  possibly  have  made." 

Still  further,  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
Paul  exhorts  the  Christians  at  Corinth  to  assist  in  the 
collection  for  the  Christian  brethren  at  Jerusalem,  whom 
he  does  not  hesitate  to  call  saints.  (1  Cor.  xvi.  1-4.)  So 
again,  on  the  same  subject  he  writes  in  the  Second  Epis- 
tle to  the  Corinthians:  "For  as  touching  the  minister- 


THE  TiiBINGEN  THEORY.  61 

ing  to  the  saints,  it  is  superfluous  for  me  to  write  to  you." 
(2  Cor.  ix.  1.)  "  While  they  themselves  also,  with  suppli- 
cation on  your  behalf,  long  after  you  by  reason  of  the  ex- 
ceeding grace  of  God  in  you."     (2  Cor.  ix.  14.) 

So,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  which  Baur  accepts 
as  genuine,  he  says :  "  Now  I  go  unto  Jerusalem  to  min- 
ister unto  the  saints.  For  it  hath  pleased  them  of  Mace- 
donia and  Achaia  to  make  a  certain  contribution  for  the 
poor  saints  which  are  at  Jerusalem.  .  .  .  And  their 
debtors  they  are.  For  if  the  Gentiles  have  been  made 
partakers  of  their  spiritual  things,  their  duty  is  also  to 
minister  unto  them  in  carnal  things."  (Rom.  xv.  25-27.) 
He  here  not  only  calls  the  Christian  believere  at  Jerusa- 
lem saints  again,  but  he  speaks  of  the  Jerusalem  Church 
as  the  fountain  whence  the  Gentiles  and  especially  the 
Romans  received  their  Christianity.  Does  all  this  seem 
compatible  with  the  view  that  the  Church  at  Jerusalem 
had  no  fellowship  with  the  uncircumcised  Gentile  believ- 
ers and  Christians  ?  Do  these  passages  in  St.  Paul's  ac- 
knowledged Epistles  leave  it  possible  to  believe  that  the 
leaders  of  the  Jerusalem  Church  were  the  enemies  of 
Paul,  and  that  he  considered  them  as  heretics  and  in 
deadly  error?  "If  the  Corinthians  and  Romans  had 
understood  these  Epistles  as  Baur  does,  how  they  must 
have  been  surprised  and  puzzled  at  Paul's  expressions  of 
brotherly  regard  for  these  Jerusalem  heretics !  " 

We  turn  now  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  on  which 
Baur  chiefly  relies  for  the  support  of  his  theory  of  the 
antagonism  between  Paul  and  Peter,  and  between  Gen- 


62  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

tile  and  Jewish  Christianity.  "  This  Epistle,"  as  Light- 
foot  says,  "  furnishes  at  once  the  New  Testament  ground 
of  the  theory,  and  the  ground  of  its  refutation."  That 
there  were  men  holding  the  views  and  entertaining  the 
hostile  feelings  against  Paul  which  Baur  attributes  to 
Peter  and  the  Jewish  Christians  is  not  denied.  But 
these  are,  in  this  very  passage  which  is  Baur's  main 
reliance,  sharply  distinguished  from  the  apostles  and 
sharply  denounced.  They  are  the  "false  brethren" 
(rohq  TzapecffaxToui;  4'^u8a8iX<pouq)  who  were  trying  to 
turn  Paul's  converts  away  from  his  doctrine,  and  to 
destroy  their  respect  for  his  apostolic  authority  and 
their  esteem  for  his  person.  But  Paul  clearly  distin- 
guishes them  from  the  apostles  and  from  the  body  of 
true  believers. 

Let  us  now  examine  this  passage  in  the  second  chap- 
ter of  Galatians,  which  is  made  so  much  of  by  Baur. 
Paul  says  ho  communicated  his  gospel,  which  he 
preached  among  the  Gentiles,  to  the  apostles,  men  who 
were  the  acknowledged  leaders,  men  of  repute  (ro'tq  So- 
xodffiv),  men  who  were  falsely  quoted  against  him  by  the 
relentless  and  persecuting  Judaizers.  He  communicated 
his  gospel  to  these  Jerusalem  apostles  Qiij  izwq  dq  xsvov 
rpixto  ^'  eSpafiov)  not  "  lest "  I  should  be  running  or  had 
run  in  vain.  That  interpretation  of  the  /xr^,  which  is  lin- 
guistically but  not  contoxtually  correct,  would  imply 
that  Paul's  past  success  was  altogether  uncertain,  and 
that  he  himself  entertained  misgivings  as  to  the  correct- 
ness of  his  preaching,  which  is  hardly  probable  in  the 


THE  TUBINGEN  THEORY.  63 

case  of  the  man  who  said  of  his  gospel,  "Even  though 
we  or  an  angel  from  heaven  preach  to  you  any  other 
gospel  than  that  we  have  preached,  let  him  be  accursed," 
The  fiij  in  this  case,  as  is  absolutely  required  by  the  con- 
text, has  another  meaning  which  is  not  uncommon — 
namely,  whether  or  not.  It  occurs  in  this  sense  in  Luke 
xi.  35,  in  the  sentence  axo-rei  oZv  fii}  to  ^a*?,  to  iv  «to\  axoro^ 
iffuv,  "  See  then  whether  or  not  the  light  that  is  in  thee 
is  darkness."  *  So  Paul  says :  "  I  communicated  to  them 
the  gospel  which  I  preach  (still)  among  the  Gentiles, 
that  they  might  see  (and  say)  whether  or  not  I  was 
running  or  had  run  in  vain."  He  was  not,  let  it  be  re- 
peated, uncertain  or  wavering  as  to  the  soundness  of  his 
gospel.  No  mortal  man  was  ever  quite  so  positive  as 
St.  Paul ;  nor  did  he  need  their  views  or  any  instruction 
from  them.  It  was  that  they  might  have  opportunity 
to  see  that  his  gospel  was  the  true  gospel,  the  same  es- 
sentially as  theira,  and  that  the  charges  of  the  Judaizers 
against  him  were  false ;  and  that  they  might  by  indors- 
ing his  gospel  make  him  able  to  silence  the  Judaizers 
everywhere  by  quoting  against  them  those  very  apos- 
tles, the  head  men  of  the  Jerusalem  and  Jewish  Church, 
whom  they  were  everywhere  falsely  quoting  against 
him.  And  this  is  precisely  the  use  ho  is  now  making  of 
that  interview  with  the  Jerusalem  apostles.  He  is  quot- 
ing it  to  his  Galatian  converts,  who  had  been  sadly  dis- 
turbed and  distracted  by  these  wolving  Judaizers.  For 
he  goes  on  to  say  that  from  these  acknowledged  chiefs 

*  See  Thayer's  Lexicon,  fi^. 


64  DisoirssiONS  in  theology. 

of  the  apostolic  circle  he  received  no  suggestion — they 
impai-ted  nothing  to  him.  And  why  ?  For  the  obvious 
reason  that  they  perfectly  agreed  with  him  in  the  gos- 
pel which  he  was  preaching  to  the  Gentiles.  There  was 
no  difference  whatever  in  their  views  on  this  point ;  and 
how  perfectly  this  necessary  implication  of  this  passage 
agrees  with  what  the  book  of  Acts  records  of  Peter's 
long  previous  reception  of  Cornelius  and  his  house  into 
the  Church  without  circumcision,  and  with  what  is  said 
in  Acts  XV.  concerning  the  conference  which  was  held  at 
Jerusalem  touching  this  very  question  of  the  relation  of 
Gentile  converts  to  the  Mosaic  law !  So  far,  then,  is  this 
passage  in  Galatians,  which  is  accepted  by  Baur,  from 
flatly  contradicting  those  two  passages  in  the  Acts,  as 
he  alleges  I 

So  then  the  pillar-apostles  at  Jerusalem,  on  hearing 
Paul's  gospel,  made  no  suggestion  of  correction  or 
change,  but  on  the  contrary  (dXXd  Touvavriov,  a  double  ad- 
versative)— i.  e.,  instead  of  making  any  addition  or  cor- 
rection, instead  of  finding  any  fault  with  my  preaching, 
they  gave  to  me  and  Barnabas  the  right  hands  of  fellowship. 
Yes,  silence  those  cruel,  cruel  Judaizers  who  are  undoing 
all  my  work  among  you  there  in  Galatia  by  saying  to 
them  that  those  apostles  whom  they  refer  to  as  the  "  pil- 
lare"  perceived  that  I  had  been  intrusted  with  the  gos- 
pel for  the  Gentiles,  recognized  the  grace  of  God  which 
had  been  given  to  me,  and,  without  proposing  any 
change  in  my  preaching,  gave  to  me  the  right  hand  of  fel- 
lowship, bidding   mo  Godspeed   in   my  ministry  to  the 


THE  TUBINGEN  THEORY.  65 

Gentiles.*  Moreover,  these  same  chiefs  among  the  apos- 
tles requested  that  Paul,  while  preaching  and  Avorking 
among  his  wealthy  Gentile  parishioners,  would  remem- 
ber the  poor  saints  at  Jerusalem,  willing  to  put  them- 
selves thus  under  obligations  to  the  Apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles and  his  uncircumcised  converts.  Fisher  says :  "  Did 
Peter,  James,  and  John  ask  for  money  of  heretics  and 
heretical  teachers?  Did  Paul  and  Barnabas  labor  to 
minister  to  the  wants  of  Judaizers,  'dogs,'  as  Paul 
plainly  calls  them  in  another  place  ?  Hardly,  hardly. 
The  fellowship  of  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  teachers  was 
genuine  and  cordial,  and  so  the  underpinning  of  the 
whole  Tubingen  theory  falls  away." 

In  the  midst  of  Paul's  account  of  the  conference  ho 
describes  the  fruitless  attempt  of  the  "  false  brethren  " 
to  force  the  circumcision  of  Titus,  who  was  a  Greek  and 
who  accompanied  Paul  to  Jerusalem,  probably  as  a  spec- 

*  The  parenthetical  remark,  "  Whatsoever  they  were,  makes 
no  difference  to  me,  God  accepts  no  man's  person,"  is  misunder- 
stood when  it  is  supposed  to  contain  irony.  It  is  simply  a  re- 
mark to  guard  his  readers  (the  Gralatians)  from  thinking  that 
from  the  phrase  he  used  in  describing  the  other  apostles  he 
himself  recognized  or  acknowledged  them  as  his  superiors.  He 
used  the  phrase  ol  SoKovvreg,  "  those  who  were  in  high  repute," 
to  show  the  sui)erlative  esteem  with  which  they  were  regarded 
by  Jewish  Christians,  including  Judaizers,  but  for  fear  the  Gdla- 
tians  might  understand  from  it  that  he  acknowledged  hirmelf 
inferior  to  them,  as  the  Judaizers  claimetl  he  was,  he  adds  the 
parenthesis :  "  Whatsoever  they  were  makes  no  difference  to  me, 
Grod  accepts  no  man's  person." 
5 


66  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

imen  of  his  Gentile  uncircumeised  converts.  These 
"false  brethren"  "had  crept  in  unawares,"  and  were  in- 
truders where  they  did  not  belong.  They  are  singled 
out  and  shaiply  distinguished  from  the  apostles  and 
from  the  true  brethren  and  believers. 

Now  Paul's  refusal  to  circumcise  Titus  is  cited  by 
Baur  to  disprove  the  historical  truth  of  the  circumcision 
of  Timothy  by  St.  Paul,  as  narrated  in  Acts.  But  it  is 
plain  upon  a  moment's  reflection,  even  to  a  superficial 
observer,  that  there  was  a  very  great  difference  between 
the  two  cases.  First,  Titus  was  a  heathen  by  birth,  and 
secondly,  his  circumcision  was  demanded  by  false  breth- 
ren on  docti'inal  grounds  and  as  a  necessary  condition  of 
salvation.  His  was  a  test  case,  and  at  a  critical  time. 
To  have  yielded  would  have  been  to  give  up  the  rights 
of  the  Gentiles,  and  justification  by  faith. 

Timothy,  on  the  contrary,  was  the  son  of  a  Jewish 
mother,  and  was  circumcised  out  of  consideration  for 
unconverted  Jews,  and  not  Judaizers  who  professed  to 
bo  converted.  Timothy's  circumcision  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  question  concerning  the  Gentiles,  and  did  not 
conflict  with  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith. 

Moreover,  the  occasion  upon  which  the  circumcision 
of  Titus  was  demanded  was  critical.  Paul  had  gone  to 
Jerusalem  to  have  this  very  question  settled,  not  for 
himself,  as  before  said,  but  that  by  having  the  public 
recognition  and  indorsement  of  those  who  were  the  chief 
among  the  apostles  to  quote  against  the  Judaizers,  he 
might  secure  his  converts  from  peril,  as  he  does  actually 


THE  TUBINGEN  THEORY.  67 

use  this  indorsement  in  this  very  Epistle  in  arguing  with 
the  unsettled  Galatian  converts. 

After  this  conference  at  Jerusalem,  occure  that "  scene  " 
at  Antioch  which  Baur  magnifies  into  a  doctrinal  oppo- 
sition and  a  personal  estrangement  between  Paul  and 
Peter.  When  Peter  went  to  Antioch,  recognizing  the 
justice  and  propriety  of  the  views  which  Paul  defended, 
and  which  the  conference  at  Jerusalem  had  indorsed,  he 
mingled  freely  with  the  Gentiles,  and  ate  with  them. 
But  under  the  momentary  control  of  that  same  disposi- 
tion which  had  led  him  in  earlier  years  to  deny  Jesus  in 
the  presence  of  apparent  danger,  when  some  of  the  Jews 
from  Jerusalem  came  to  Antioch,  Peter  dissembled  and 
secretly  withdrew  from  association  with  the  Gentiles. 
But  who  were  these  Jews  from  Jerusalem,  and  why 
should  Peter  be  afraid  for  them  to  see  him  eating  with 
Gentiles,  if  they  knew  (»f  the  decisions  of  the  conference 
concerning  the  Gentiles  ?  They  had  perhaps  never  been 
associated  with  Gentiles,  and  Peter  perhaps  imagined 
they  would  be  shocked  and  offended  at  seeing  him  doing 
what  they  had  never  seen  a  Jew  doing — eating  with  Gen- 
tiles— or,  though  knowing  and  approving  the  decision  ol 
the  council  at  Jerusalem  concerning  the  circumcision  of 
Gentile  converts,  they  perhaps  under  the  influence  of  a 
life-long  and  ineradicable  prejudice  still  held  aloof  from 
associating  with  Gentiles  on  terms  of  social  equality.  In- 
deed, we  cannot  even  say  that  Peter  himself  would  have 
violated  the  terms  of  the  arrangement  concerning  Gen- 
tile converts  if  ho  had  consistently  and  from  the  begin- 


68  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

ning  declined  to  eat  with  them.  So  then,  while  these 
Jews  from  James  most  probably  did  understand  and  ac- 
cept the  decisions  and  decrees  of  the  council,  they  shrank 
from  allowing  that  a  Jew  might  in  any  case  live  on  an 
equality  with  the  Gentiles,  and  this  would  be  enough  to 
influence  Peter  in  a  moment  and  mood  of  weakness.  If 
this  be  hard  for  us  to  understand,  we  need  only  remind 
ourselves  that  while  we  freely  concede  that  many  colored 
people  are  Christians,  and  perhaps  in  some  cases  better 
than  ourselves,  the  force  of  prejudice  or  the  fear  of  public 
opinion  would  make  it  diflScult,  if  not  impossible,  for  us  to 
consent  to  live  on  terms  of  social  equality  with  them. 

"  The  offense,  then,  which  Paul  charged  on  iPeter  was, 
first,  that  he  was  guilty  of  hypocrisy  in  departing  from 
the  course  which  he  pursued  before  the  arrival  of  those 
from  James,  since  in  thus  altering  his  conduct  he  acted 
against  his  real  convictions  and  from  fear ;  and,  secondly, 
that  he  was  guilty  of  a  virtual  attempt  to  lead  the  Gen- 
tile converts  to  Judaize  " — that  is,  make  them  feel  that, 
as  they  were  not  on  an  equality  with  the  Jews,  they 
ought  to  bo  circumcised.  Peter  was  not,  then,  accused 
of  an  error  in  doctrine.  He  is  not  represented  as  disa- 
greeing with  Paul  in  that  respect ;  he  did  not  antagonize 
Paul  on  that  ground,  as  Baur  alleges.  He  was  accused 
of  an  error  in  conduct. 

"  Peter  behaved  in  a  manner  inconsistent  with  his  real 
views  and  convictions,  and  there  is  as  little  reason,"  it 
has  boon  well  remarked,  "  for  imputing  to  Peter  Judaiz- 
ing  principles  on  this  occasion  as  for  imputing  them  to 


tfHE  TDBINQEN  THEORY.  69 

Barnabas,  -who  was  also,  strange  to  say,  led  away  with 
Peter."  "  Only  if  Paul  in  this  passage  had  complained 
that  Peter  held  a  false  principle,  and  that  he  did  not  un- 
derstand the  rights  of  the  Gentiles,  could  this  interview 
be  urged  in  support  of  Baur's  theory."  But  Paul  did 
not,  according  to  his  own  report  of  the  collision,  make 
any  such  charge  or  complaint  against  Peter.  He  does, 
however,  say  that  Peter  walked  not  uprightly  according 
to  the  truth  of  the  gospel ;  he  does  say  that  Peter  was 
guilty  of  hypocrisy  (J)T:oxpia£t,  Gal.  ii.  13) ;  he  does  say 
that  Peter  stood  condemned  because — because  of  what  ? 
because  he  held  or  preached  a  wrong  doctrine  ?  No ; 
but  because  when  certain  Jews  came  from  James  he  quit 
associating  with  the  Gentile  believers  out  of  fear  of  those 
Jews  (jpo^oofievoq  tow?  ^x  iceptTOfiTj^. 

Indeed,  Peter's  eating  with  the  Gentiles  before  the  ar- 
rival of  those  Jews,  which  is  a  part  of  this  record,  ac- 
cepted as  genuine  and  as  true  by  Baur,  presupposes  an 
essential  agreement  between  himself  and  Paul  on  the 
matter  in  question,  and  so  the  theory  which  has  this 
passage  for  its  main  support  falls  to  the  ground. 

The  correct  interpretation  of  this  crucial  passage,  then, 
shows  that  there  was  nothing  in  Peter's  conduct  on  this 
occasion  at  Antioch  that  is  inconsistent  with  the  state- 
ment in  Acts  that  Peter  preached  to  the  Gentile  Corne- 
lius and  his  house,  received  them  into  the  Christian 
Church  without  circumcision,  and  ate  with  them.  (Acts 
xi.  3.)     Ten  or  fifteen  years*  had  elapsed  since  the  con- 

*See  Hackett's  "  Chronology  of  Acts,"  "Commentary  on  Acta," 
pp.  23,  24. 


70  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

version  of  Cornelius.  Pharisees  had  become  believers, 
and  had  retained  their  views  and  prejudices  concerning 
the  necessity  of  observing  the  Mosaic  law.  And  in  the 
Church  at  Jerusalem,  isolated  from  all  contact  with  Gen- 
tiles, it  would  be  quite  probable  that  the  prejudice  against 
social  equality  with  the  Gentiles  would  remain  and  even 
grow  among  the  members  of  the  Jerusalem  Church.  This 
explains  how  Peter,  by  constant  contact  with  such  peo- 
ple, such  practices,  and  such  views,  would  be  in  a  condi- 
tion to  waver  at  Antioch,  as  he  actually  did. 

An  examination  of  the  Epistles  which  are  accepted  by 
Baur  as  genuine  furnishes  no  ground,  then,  for  the  posi- 
tion maintained  by  the  Tubingen  critics  that  these  Epis- 
tles present  Paul's  personality  in  a  way  that  is  absolute- 
ly irreconcilable  with  the  representations  which  we  have 
of  Paul  in  the  book  of  Acts. 

The  only  passages  in  the  Acts  which  represent  Paul 
as  observing  the  Mosaic  ritual  are :  (1)  that  which  nar- 
rates his  circumcision  of  Timothy  (Acts  xvi.  3) ;  (2)  that 
which  represents  him  as  shaving  his  head  at  the  expira- 
tion of  a  vow  (Acts  xviii.  18)  ;  (3)  that  which  states  that 
he  participated  in  ceremonies  connected  with  a  vow  of 
other  men  (Acts  xxi.  24-26). 

In  regard  to  the  circumcision  of  Timothy,  we  have 
already  shown  that  it  was  not  at  all  inconsistent  with 
Paul's  principles.  Timothy  was  the  son  of  a  Jewish 
mother,  and  to  facilitate  his  reception  among  unconvert- 
ed Jews  as  a  preacher  of  the  gospel  and  a  helper  of  St. 
Paul,  he  was  circumcised.    His  circumcision  in  no  way 


THE  TUBINGEN  THEORY,  71 

compromised  the  freedom  of  the  Gentiles,  or  involved  St, 
Paul's  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  Besides,  it  is 
perfectly  in  accord  with  a  rule  of  St.  Paul  enunciated  in 
one  of  the  very  Epistles  whei-e  Baur  finds  proofs  of  the 
impossibility  of  Paul's  allowing  such  a  procedure.  "  Unto 
the  Jews  I  became  as  a  Jew,  that  1  might  gain  the  Jews ; 
to  them  that  are  under  the  law,  as  under  the  law,  that  I 
might  gain  them  that  are  under  the  law,"  (1  Cor,  ix,  20.) 

The  difference  between  the  case  of  Timothy  and  that 
of  Titus  has  already  been  shown. 

The  j^assage  in  Acts  xviii.  18  may  refer  to  Aquila ;  but 
if  it  refers  to  Paul,  it  is  in  keeping  with  his  attitude  to- 
ward Judaism  and  the  law,  as  shown  heretofore  in  this 
paper. 

And  he  who  made  it  a  rule  of  practice  to  become  a 
Jew  to  Jews,  that  he  might  win  Jews,  surely  found  no 
difficulty  or  inconsistency  in  taking  part  in  the  ceremo- 
nies concerning  a  vow  of  other  Jews,  in  the  way  that 
James  recommended,  as  a  visible  proof  of  the  falsity  of 
the  charge  that  he  was  everywhere  persuading  the  Jews 
to  forsake  the  Mosaic  law. 

It  is  worthy  of  note,  too,  that  the  Jews  who  assaulted 
him  about  the  time  of  the  explication  of  this  vow  were 
not  believing  Jews,  nor  even  Jerusalem  Jews,  but  uncon- 
verted, fanatical  Jews  from  Asia  Minor,  where  so  many 
and  cruel  persecutions  were  stiiTod  up  against  him  dur- 
ing his  missionary  labors  there. 

Now  let  us  consider,  in  the  second  place,  whether  the 
contents  of  the  book  of  Acts  are  such  as  would  naturally 


72  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOQT. 

be  expected  on  the  theory  that  it  was  written  for  the 
purpose  alleged  by  the  Tubingen  critics.  Only  a  few 
points  can  be  noticed.  In  Acts  i.  21,  22,  it  is  said  that 
an  apostle  to  succeed  Judas  must  be  chosen  from  those 
that  "  companied  with  the  eleven  all  the  time  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out  among  them,  .  .  .  unto 
the  day  that  he  was  received  up ;  "  and  in  i.  26  it  is 
stated  that  not  Paul,  but  Matthias,  was  chosen  to  fill 
the  place  of  Judas,  and  "  he  was  numbered  with  the  elev- 
en," making  the  apostolic  college  again  complete  without 
any  place  for  Paul.  Now  if  the  Pauline  and  Petrine 
factions  of  the  Church  were  such  as  these  suspicious 
critics  declare,  and  if  furthermore,  as  they  represent  and 
claim,  the  adherents  of  Peter  vehemently  and  bitterly 
denied  the  apostolic  authority  of  Paul,  and  so  excluded 
him  from  the  apostolic  circle,  as  certainly  the  Judaizers 
of  that  day  did  do,  and  if  the  book  of  Acts  was  fabricat- 
ed for  the  purpose  of  reconciling  these  two  parties,  it  is 
inconceivable  that  the  fabricator  of  it  should  have  made 
the  statements  of  verses  21  and  22,  and  verse  26.  For, 
so  far  from  reconciling  the  two  parties,  that  would  only 
confirm  the  partisans  of  Peter  in  the  opinion  that  Paul 
was  no  apostle,  and  would  indeed  give  them  additional 
reason  for  denying  his  apostleship. 

Again,  if  the  design  of  the  writer  of  Acts  was  to  rec- 
oncile the8&  two  parties  and  heal  their  differences,  it  cer- 
tainly would  have  contributed  very  little  to  that  design 
to  represent  that  the  thousands  of  the  Jews  who  believed 
wore  "  all "  in  apostolic  times  "  zealous  of  the  law  "  and 


THE  TUBINGEN  THEORY.  73 

devoted  to  its  ceremonial  observances.  "Thou  seest, 
brother,  how  many  thousands  of  them  there  are  among 
the  Jews  which  have  believed ;  and  they  are  all  zealous 
for  the  law."  (Acts  xxi.  20.)  Even  if  the  writer  had  be- 
lieved that  to  be  the  case,  he  would  have  concealed  it; 
for  the  Tubingen  theory  is  that  the  writer,  being  a  for- 
ger, invented  or  omitted  according  to  his  purpose  and 
pleasure. 

Again,  in  Acts  xiii.  38,  39,  Paul  is  represented  as  de- 
claring against  the  Mosaic  law  that  it  could  not  justify 
men,  but  only  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  "  By  this 
man  every  one  that  belioveth  is  justified  from  all  things, 
from  which  ye  could  not  he  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses." 
According  to  Baur,  the  book  of  Acts  is  a  forgery  invent- 
ed for  the  purpose  of  harmonizing  the  two  factions,  and 
so  it  represents  Paul  as  friendly  to  the  law  and  to  Juda- 
ism, as  when  he  has  Timothy  circumcised  and  when  he 
joins  in  the  ceremonies  attending  the  expiration  of  a 
vow.  How  is  it,  then,  that  the  fabricator  of  this  same 
book  of  Acts  makes  the  blunder  of  saying  that  Paul 
openly  and  squarely  asserts  that  the  law  of  Moses  was 
impotent  to  justify  men?  This  would  hardly  have 
served  the  writer's  design,  and  might  just  as  well  have 
been  left  out. 

We  notice  only  one  more  example  of  passages  that  are 
absolutely  inconsistent  with  the  design  attributed  to  the 
writer  of  Acts  by  the  Tubingen  critics.  If  the  object  of 
the  writer  was  to  make  such  a  representation  of  the  say- 
ings and  doings  of  Paul  as  would  conciliate  the  Petrine 


74  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

or  Jewish  faction,  it  is  inconceivable  that  he  should  not 
have  omitted  those  passages  which  represent  Paul  as 
speaking  in  severe  and  denunciatory  terms  of  the  Jews 
and  to  the  Jews,  and  as  turning  away  from  them  to 
preach  to  the  Gentiles ;  as,  for  example :  "  It  was  neces- 
sary that  the  word  of  God  should  first  be  spoken  to  you. 
Seeing  ye  thrust  it  from  you,  and  judge  yourselves  unwor- 
thy of  eternal  life,  lo,  we  turn  to  the  Gentiles."  (Acts  xiii. 
46.)  "And  when  they  [the  Jews]  opposed  themselves, 
and  blasphemed,  he  [Paul]  shook  out  his  raiment,  and 
said  unto  them,  Your  blood  be  upon  your  own  heads ;  I 
am  clean :  from  henceforth  I  will  go  unto  the  Gentiles." 
(Acts  xviii.  6.)  After  Paul  said,  "  "Well  spake  the  Holy 
Ghost  by  Isaiah  the  prophet  unto  your  fathers,  saying, 
Go  thou  unto  this  people,  and  say.  By  hearing  ye  shall 
hear,  and  shall  in  nowise  understand ;  and  seeing  ye 
shall  see,  and  shall  in  nowise  perceive :  for  this  people's 
heart  is  waxed  gross,  and  their  ears  are  dull  of  hearing, 
and  their  eyes  they  have  closed ;  lest  haply  they  should 
perceive  with  their  eyes,  and  hear  with  their  ears,  and 
understand  with  their  heart,  and  should  turn  again,  and 
I  should  heal  them.  Be  it  known  therefore  unto  you, 
that  this  salvation  of  God  is  sent  unto  the  Gentiles :  they 
will  also  hear." 

The  question  of  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of 
the  book  of  Acts,  on  an  independent  basis,  is  a  separate 
one,  and  too  large  to  be  treated  at  any  length  in  this 
place.  The  external  testimonies  are  of  such  a  character 
as  to  satisfy  critics  of  all  schools  but  the  msatiable 


THE  TUBINGEN  THEORY.  76 

Tubingen  school.  The  celebrated  Muratorian  Canon 
thus  speaks  of  the  book:  "Now,  the  Acts  of  all  the 
apostles  were  written  in  one  book.  Luke  embmced  in 
his  work  to  the  most  excellent  Theophilus  only  the 
things  which  were  done  in  his  presence,  and  this  is 
plainly  proved  by  his  omission  of  all  mention  of  the 
death  of  Peter  and  of  the  setting  out  of  Paul  to  Spain." 
It  is  also  attested  by  name  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus, 
« Strom.,"  V.  12 ;  by  Tortullian,  "Against  Marcion"  Y.  2 ; 
"DeJejun"  10;  "De  Baptismo,"  10;  by  Irenaeus,  "Against 
Heresies,"  III.  14,  I.  and  III.  15,  1.  The  book  is  quoted 
also  in  the  famous  letter  from  the  Churches  of  Lyons 
and  Vienne  in  Gaul  (France),  which  Irenseus  bore  to 
the  Churches  of  Asia  and  to  the  bishop  of  Eome.  (Eu- 
sebius,  H.  E.,  V.  1,  2.)  No  other  but  Luke  is  named  by 
the  ancient  orthodox  Church  as  the  author  of  the  book 
It  is  included  in  the  undisputed  books  of  the  canon  by 
Eusebius,  H.  E.,  III.  25. 

The  moral  tone  of  the  book  is  opposed  to  the  theory 
of  its  being  a  forgery.  "There  is  manifest  throughout 
the  book  of  Acts  a  penetrating  discernment  of  the  sa- 
credness  of  truth  and  the  obligation  of  voracity.  He 
who  set  down  the  record'of  the  sin  and  punishment  of 
Ananias  and  Sapphira  was  incapable  of  palming  off,  as 
a  veritable  history  of  the  apostles  and  of  the  manner  in 
which  they  wore  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  a  series  of 
fictitious  storios  invented  by  himself."  * 

*  Scbaff, "  Church  History,"  I.,  739. 


76  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

Again,  a  critical  examination  of  the  contents  of  the 
book  will  prove  that  the  author  shows  a  microscopically 
accurate  knowledge  of  historical  and  political  matters, 
as  confirmed  by  profane  historians,  such  as  Josephus, 
Strabo,  and  Dio  Cassius ;  that  he  is  thoroughly  acquaint- 
ed with  the  details  of  the  geography  of  the  extensive 
regions  which  Paul  traversed  by  sea  and  by  land,  and  of 
many  other  things,  the  accounts  of  which  can  be  and 
have  been  tested  by  the  most  thorough  investigation, 
both  on  the  ground  where  the  events  are  alleged  to  have 
occuiTcd  and  in  the  literary  remains  of  those  days* 
Many  examples  of  the  author's  accurate  knowledge  of 
details  could  bo  given,  but  one  or  two  will  serve  as  illus- 
trations. In  Acts  xii.  1,  Herod  Agrippa  I.,  son  of  Aris- 
tobulus  and  grandson  of  Herod  the  Great,  is  called  king. 
"Now  about  that  time  Herod,  the  king,  put  forth  his 
hands  to  afflict  certain  of  the  Church."  Here  the  au- 
thor has  shown  the  most  remarkable  accuracy  in  the 
use  of  his  terms.  "There  was  no  portion  of  time  for 
thirty  years  before,"  says  Paley,  "  or  ever  afterward,  in 
which  there  was  a  king  at  Jerusalem,  a  person  exercis- 
ing that  authority  in  Judea,  or  to  whom  the  title  could 
be  applied  except  the  last  three  years  of  Herod's  life, 
within  which  period  the  transaction  here  recorded  took 
place."  Josephus  relates  that  on  the  accession  of  Clau- 
dius (A.D.  41)  Herod  Agrippa  received  the  entire  sover- 

*  On  this  point  see  Hackett's  excellent  Commentary  passim, 
Harman's  "  Introduction,"  pp.  637-743,  and  Schaff, "  Church  His- 
tory," Vol.  I.,  pp.  732-737. 


THE  TUBINGEN  THEORY.  77 

eignty  of  his  grandfather,  Herod  the  Great  *  and  so  be- 
came king;  and  he  further  relates  that  at  the  time  of 
his  death  he  had  completed  the  third  year  after  this  ex- 
tension of  his  power.f 

In  Acts  xiii.  7  Sergius  Paulus  is  called  proconsul  (d.veb- 
Traroc).  This  was  for  a  long  time  supposed  to  be  a  mis- 
take. Augustus  Caesar  divided  the  provinces  of  the 
empire  into  two  classes.  Those  which  required  a  mili- 
tary force  he  retained  in  his  own  hands,  and  the  others 
he  committed  to  the  care  of  the  senate  and  Eoman  peo- 
ple. The  governors  sent  to  the  emperor's  provinces 
were  styled  propraetors  or  legates  (dvTt<TTpdr^yo<;  or  Tcpsff- 
fieurrj':) ;  those  sent  into  the  people's  provinces  were  called 
proconsuls  (dvffonaTot;).  Accordingly,  at  this  time,  Cyprus 
must  have  been  one  of  these  senatorian  provinces,  or  the 
author  of  Acts  has  given  Sergius  Paulus  the  wrong  title. 
Stmbo  informs  us  that  Augustus  reserved  Cyprus  for 
himself,  and  committed  its  administration  to  propra)toi*s. 
From  this  it  was  for  a  long  time  supposed  that  the  au- 
thor of  Acts  had  made  a  mistake.  But  a  passage  was 
discovered  at  length  in  Dio  Cassius  (liii.  12),  which  states 
that  Augustus  subsequently  relinquished  Cyprus  to  the 
senate  in  exchange  for  another  province,  and  so  proconsuls 
(^dvOunaroi)  began  to  be  sent  thither-X  Besides  this,  coins 
have  been  discovered  from  the  reign  of  Claudius  which 
confirm  this  statement.    (See  Akonnan,  "  Numismatic  II- 

*  Josephus,  Ant.  19,  5, 1. 

t  lUd.,  Ant.  19,  8,  2.    See  Hackett,  in  loc. 

t  See  Hackett'a  Commentary,  in  loc. 


78  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

lustrations,"  pp.  39-42.)  Indeed,  as  Dr.  Schaff  says,  the 
very  name  of  Sergius  Paulus  has  been  discovered  by 
Genei*al  di  Cesnola  at  Soli,  the  second  city  of  the  island, 
in  a  mutilated  inscription  which  reads,  "In  the  procon- 
sulship  of  Paulus,"  ^Et:\  TlauXou  avOuTzdrou. 

The  account  of  the  voyage  and  shipwreck  of  St.  Paul, 
contained  in  chapter  xxvii.,  contains  more  information 
about  ancient  navigation  than  any  work  of  Greek  or 
Roman  literature,  and  betrays  the  minute  accuracy  of  an 
intelligent  eye-witness,  who  was  very  familiar  with  nau- 
tical terms  from  close  observation.  He  uses  no  less  than 
sixteen  nautical  terms,  some  of  them  rare,  to  describe 
the  motion  and  management  of  a  ship,  all  of  them  most 
appropriately.  He  is  strictly  correct  in  his  desciiption 
of  the  localities  at  Crete,  Salmone,  Fair  Havens,  Clauda, 
Lasea,  and  Phoenix  (two  small  places  recently  identified), 
and  Melita  (Malta),  as  well  as  the  motions  and  effects  of 
the  north-east  wind,  called  Eui*aquilo  in  the  Mediterra- 
nean. All  this  has  been  thoroughly  tested  by  an  expert 
seaman  and  scholar,  James  Smith,  who  has  made  a  con- 
tribution of  permanent  value  to  the  evidences  of  Chris- 
tianity in  his  book  entitled  "  The  Voyage  and  Shipwreck 
of  St.  Paul."  *  Those  are  only  three  of  many  instances 
which  might  be  given. 

A  distinct  argument  for  the  authenticity  of  Acts,  and 

one  in  itself  conclusive,  has  been  constructed  upon  a 

comparison  between  the  contents  of  the  Acts  and  the 

Epistles  of  St.  Paul.     This  argument  has  been  worked 

*  See  Dr.  Schaff,  "  Church  History,"  Vol.  I.,  p.  736. 


THE  TUBINGEN  THEORY.  79 

out  in  detail  in  a  volume  by  Archdeacon  Paloy,  called 
"  Horro  Paulinas,"  and  is  little  short  of  a  demonstration, 
though  Baur  and  his  Tiibingen  critics  betray  no  knowl- 
edge of  the  argument.  Paley  says :  "  Between  the  let- 
ters which  bear  the  name  of  St.  Paul  in  our  collection 
and  the  history  of  St.  Paul  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles there  exist  many  notes  of  correspondence.  The 
study  of  the  two  writings  is  sufficient  to  prove  that 
neither  the  history  was  taken  from  the  letters  nor  the 
letters  from  the  history.  And  the  undesignedness  of  the 
agreements  (which  undesignedness  is  gathered  from 
their  latency,  their  minuteness,  their  obliquity,  the  suit- 
ableness of  the  circumstances  in  which  they  consist  to 
the  places  in  which  those  circumstances  occur)  demon- 
strates that  neither  the  history  nor  the  Epistles  have 
been  produced  by  meditation  or  any  fraudulent  contriv- 
ance. Coincidences  from  which  these  causes  are  exclud- 
ed, and  which  are  too  close  and  numerous  to  be  accounted 
for  by  accidental  concurrences  of  fiction,  must  necessarily 
have  truth  for  their  foundation." 

Take  one  example  of  this  undesigned  coincidence.  "  In 
2  Corinthians  xi.  24,  25  Paul  writes :  '  Of  the  Jews  five 
times  received  I  forty  stripes  save  one.  Thrice  was  I  boat- 
on  with  rods,  once  was  I  stoned,  thrice  I  suffered  ship- 
wreck, a  night  and  a  day  have  I  been  in  the  deep.'  Now 
these  particulars  are  not  given  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
which  proves  that  the  Epistle  was  not  framed  froraHho 
history,  nor  could  the  history  have  been  framed  from 
the  Epistle ;  otherwise,  these  particulars  would   most 


80  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

probably  have  been  inserted.  And  yet  all  these  particu- 
lars are  consistent  with  the  history,  which,  considering 
how  numerically  circumstantial  the  account  is,  is  more 
than  could  happen  to  arbitrary  and  independent  fictions. 
When  I  say  that  these  particulars  are  consistent  with 
the  history,  I  mean  (1)  that  there  is  no  article  in  the 
enumeration  which  is  contradicted  by  the  history;  (2) 
that  the  history,  though  silent  with  respect  to  many  of 
the  facts  here  enumerated,  has  left  space  for  the  exist- 
ence of  these  facts,  consistent  with  the  fidelity  of  its 
own  narration.  First,  no  contradiction  is  discoverable 
between  the  Epistle  and  the  history.  When  St.  Paul 
says,  ^thrice  was  I  beaten  with  rods,'  although  the  his- 
tory records  only  one  beating  with  rods — namely,  at 
Philippi  (Acts  xvi.  22) — yet  there  is  no  contradiction. 
It  is  only  the  omission  in  one  book  of  what  is  related  in 
another.  But  had  the  history  in  Acts  contained  accounts 
of  four  beatings  with  rods  at  the  time  of  writing  this  Epis- 
tle in  which  St.  Paul  says  he  had  suffered  only  three,  there 
would  have  been  a  contradiction,  properly  so  called.  But 
there  is  one  clause  in  the  quotation  particularly  deserv- 
ing of  remark  because,  when  confronted  with  the  histo- 
ry, it  furnishes  the  nearest  approach  to  a  contradiction 
without  falling  into  it.  'Once,'  says  St.  Paul,  in  the 
passage  in  2  Corinthians,  'was  I  stoned.'  And  so  the 
history  in  Acts  distinctly  mentions  one  occasion  on  which 
St.*Paul  was  stoned — namely,  at  Lystra.  'There  came 
thither  certairf  Jews  from  Antioch  and  Iconium,  who 
persuaded  the  people,  and,  having  stoned  Paul,  drew  him 


THE  TUBINGEN  THEORY.  81 

out  of  the  city,  supposing  he  had  been  dead.'  (Acts  xiv 
19.)  And  this  is  the  only  occasion  on  which,  according 
to  the  history,  Paul  rioas  actually  stoned.  But  it  mentions 
also  another  occasion  in  which  an  assault  was  made  '  both 
of  the  Gentiles,  and  also  of  the  Jews  with  their  rulers,  to 
use  them  despitefuUy,  and  to  stone  them ; '  but  they  were 
aware  of  it,  '  and  fled  into  Lysti-a  and  Derbe.'  Now  had 
this  assault  been  completed,  had  the  history  related  that 
a  single  stone  was  thrown,  as  it  does  relate  that  prepara- 
tions were  made  by  Jews  and  Gentiles  to  stone  Paul 
and  his  companions,  a  contradiction  between  the  history 
and  the  Epistle  would  have  ensued ;  or,  had  the  account 
of  the  transaction  stopped  without  going  on  to  inform 
us  that  Paul  and  his  companions  were  aware  of  the  dan- 
ger, and  fled,  in  that  case  also  there  would  have  been  a 
contradiction.  Truth  is  necessarily  consistent ;  but  it  is 
scarcely  possible  that  independent  accounts  not  having 
truth  to  shape  them  should  thus  advance  to  the  very 
brink  of  contradiction  without  falling  into  it."  * 

Lastly,  among  other  proofs  of  the  authenticity  of  the 
book  of  Acts  may  be  mentioned  the  surprisingly  abridged 
and  abrupt  ending  of  the  book,  the  silence  concerning 
the  last  labors  and  fate  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  and  the 
similar  silence  concerning  the  fate  of  Peter.  It  is  hard- 
ly conceivable  that  a  writer,  forging  the  contents  of  the 
book  in  the  second  century,  long  after  the  deaths  of 
Paul  and  Peter,  should  have  omitted  any  reference 
thereto.    The  phenomena  here  referred  to  are  intelligi- 

*  "  Horse  Paulinse,"  pp.  74,  75. 
6 


82  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

ble  only  on  the  supposition  of  a  real  and  candid  compan- 
ion of  the  Apostle  being  prevented  by  circumstances 
from  continuing  his  narrative,  but  would  be  altogether 
inconceivable  in  the  case  of  an  author  not  writing  till 
the  second  century,  and  inventing  and  manipulating 
materials  with  a  definite  tendency,  as  Baur  and  the  Tu- 
bingen critics  hold* 

"  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,"  says  one  of  the  most  can- 
did, learned,  and  scholarly  critics  of  the  age,f  "in  the 
multiplicity  and  variety  of  its  details  probably  affords 
greater  means  of  testing  its  general  character  for  truth 
than  any  other  ancient  narrative  in  existence,  and  in  my 
opinion  it  satisfies  the  tests  fully."  And  every  argu- 
ment for  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  this  mani- 
foldly tested  document  is  an  argument  against  Baur's 
audacious  and  mendacious  theory  of  a  second-century 
tendency  -  forgery.  Indeed,  a  most  important  change 
took  place  in  Baur's  own  mind  shortly  before  his  death 
in  1860.  Says  Dr.  Schaff,  who  was  a  student  at  the 
University  of  Tubingen  during  the  connection  of  Baur 
and  Strauss  with  it :  "As  an  honest  and  serious  skeptic, 
he  had  to  confess  at  last  a  psychological  miracle  in  the 
conversion  of  St.  Paul,  and  to  bow  before  the  greater 
miracle  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  without  which  the 

*  See  Meyer,  "  Introduction  to  Acts,"  p.  5. 

t  Bishop  Lightfoot,  Excursus  on  St.  Paul  and  the  Three  in 
hia  Commentary  on  Galatians,  p.  184.  This  Excursus  refutes 
Baur's  position  that  the  Church  of  the  second  century  was  Ebi- 
onite,  and  not  catholic.    See  especially  pp.  172, 173. 


THE  TUBINGEN  THEORY.  83 

former  is  an  inexplicable  enigma."  And  when  Baur 
was  dying,  his  pantheism  broke  down,  and,  though  he 
had  looked  upon  the  idea  of  a  personal  God  with  con- 
tempt, he  prayed  to  the  personal  God  to  grant  him  a 
peaceful  end.     "  Lord,  grant  me  a  peaceful  end." 

And  Christianity  abides,  the  Tubingen  critics  *  to  the 

*  As  to  the  later  phases  of  this  Tubingen  criticism  Dr.  SchaflF 
says :  While  some  pupils  of  Baur  (Strauss  and  Volkmar)  have 
gone  even  beyond  his  positions,  others  make  concessions  to  the 
traditional  views.  [The  change  in  Baur's  own  mind  has  already 
been  mentioned.]  Holtzmann,  Reuss,  Weizsjicker,  and  Keim 
have  modified  and  corrected  many  of  the  extreme  views  of  the 
Tubingen  school.  Even  Hilgenfield,  with  all  his  zeal  for  "  Fort- 
schrittstheologie "  (progressive  theology)  and  against  "Riick- 
schrittstheologie  "  (retrogressive  theology),  admits  seven  instead 
of  four  Pauline  Epistles,  assigns  an  earlier  date  to  the  synoptical 
Gospels  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  says :  "  It  cannot 
be  denied  that  Baur's  criticism  went  beyond  the  bounds  of 
moderation,  and  inflicted  too  deep  wounds  on  the  faith  of  the 
Church."  Renan  admits  nine  Pauline  Epistles,  the  essential 
genuineness  of  Acts,  and  even  the  narrative  portions  of  John's 
Gospel.  Schenkel  (in  his  Christusbild  der  Apostel,  1879)  con- 
siderably moderates  the  antagonism  between  Petrinism  and 
Paulinism,  and  confesses  that  he  has  been  "  forced  to  the  con- 
viction that  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  a  more  trustworthy 
source  of  information  than  is  commonly  allowed  on  the  part  of 
modem  criticism."  Keim,  in  1878,  a  year  before  his  death,  came 
to  a  similar  conclusion,  and  proves  in  opposition  to  Baur,  Schweg- 
ler,  and  Zeller,  yet  from  the  stand-point  of  liberal  criticism  and 
allowing  later  additions,  the  substantial  harmony  between  the 
Acts  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Gralatians  as  regards  the  apostolic 
conference  at  Jerusalem. 


84  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

contrary  notwithstanding,  and  calmly  survives  this  cun- 
ningly devised  form  of  assault,  as  it  has  survived  a  thou- 
sand others.  Now,  as  when  Jesus  spoke  to  Saul,  it  is 
hard  for  men  to  kick  against  the  goads.  Christianity 
does  not  suffer.  It  is  only  the  men  who  kick  that  suffer. 
And  as  the  possibilities  of  hostile  assault  are  gradually 
exhausted,  the  Christian  may  say  with  ever-deepening 

confidence : 

"  Should  all  the  forms  that  men  devise 
Assault  my  feith  with  treach'rous  art, 
I'd  call  them  vanity  and  lies, 
And  bind  the  gospel  to  my  heart." 

"While  there  are  thus  signs  of  disintegration  in  the  ranks  of 
destructive  criticism,  the  historic  truth  and  genuineness  of  the 
New  Testament  writings  have  found  learned  and  able  defenders 
from  different  stand-points,  such  as  Neander,  Domer,  Ebrard, 
Lechler,  Lange,  Hoflfman  (of  Erlangen),  Luthardt,  Christlieb, 
Weiss,  Godet,  de  Pressens^,  and  among  Englishmen  and  Ameri- 
cans, Lightfoot,  Westcott,  Pluraptre,  Sanday,  Farrar,  G.  P,  Fisher 
Ezra  Abbott.    "  Church  History,"  Vol.  I.,  pp.  211,  212. 


THE  PRINCE  OF  PREACHERS: 
John  Chrysostom. 


The  fourth  century  was  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
m  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church.  Its  intellectual 
activity  is  a  mai'vel.  Until  we  reach  the  period  of  the 
Eeformation,  or  at  least  until  we  reach  the  period  of 
scholasticism,  we  may  in  vain  search  elsewhere  for  so 
many  eminent  names.  In  the  West,  for  example,  we  at 
this  time  find  Ambrose,  Jerome,  and  Augustine — three 
of  the  four  great  Doctors  of  the  Latin  Church ;  and  in 
the  East,  Athanasius,  Basil,  Gregory  Nazianzus,  Greg- 
ory Nyssen,  and  John  Chrysostom,  all  of  whom  occupy 
an  equally  unrivaled  eminence  among  the  Greeks.  We 
have  here  another  illustration  of  the  general  law  ac- 
cording to  which  great  men  come  into  the  world,  not 
singly,  but  in  groups. 

Concerning  the  last  mentioned  of  these  Fathere,  whom 
the  Homilies  of  the  English  Church  call  "that  godly 
clerk  and  great  preacher,"  I  wish  to  write  as  briefly  as 
the  fertility  of  the  theme  will  allow.  The  title  of  Chrys- 
ostom, or  Gold-mouth,  by  which  alone  he  is  known  in 
history,  was  not  given  him  for  at  least  a  hundred  years 
after  his  death.  His  real  name  was  simply  John.  He 
was  born  at  Antioch  in  Syria  not  earlier  than  A.D.  343, 
nor  later  than  347,  but  the  exact  date  is  not  known. 


86  DisctrssioNs  in  theology. 

His  father,  Soeundus,  a  distinguished  officer  in  the  im- 
perial army,  died  while  he  was  yet  an  infant,  and  his 
whole  rearing  and  training  was  devolved  upon  his  pious 
mother,  Anthusa.  She  was  equal  to  the  task,  and  dis- 
charged it  with  the  most  scrupulous  fidelity.  Left  a 
widow  at  the  age  of  twenty,  in  a  generation  on  which 
all  moral  obligations  sat  lightly,  she  was  noted  down  to 
the  day  of  her  death  for  her  reverent  regard  for  the 
memory  of  her  husband,  and  her  tender  devotion  to  the 
interests  of  her  son.  Along  with  Macrina  and  Nona  and 
Monica  she  shares  the  high  honor  of  having  been  one  of 
the  "great  mothers"  of  the  early  Church.  Chrysos- 
tom  himself  informs  us  that  when  he  began  to  attend 
the  lectures  of  Libanius,  his  master  inquired  who  and 
what  his  parents  were ;  and  on  being  told  that  he  was 
the  son  of  a  widow  who,  at  the  age  of  forty,  had  lost  her 
husband  twenty  years,  he  exclaimed  in  a  tone  of  min- 
gled jealousy  and  admiration :  "  Heavens !  what  women 
these  Christians  have !  " 

When  this  incident  took  place  John  was  eighteen 
years  old.  His  object  in  entering  the  school  of  Libanius 
was  to  prepare  himself  to  be  an  advocate  in  the  law 
courts.  He  here  became  so  well  acquainted  with  the 
best  Greek  authors,  both  in  prose  and  poetry,  that  in 
later  life  ho  could  always  quote  them  with  ease  when  he 
wished  to  "point  an  argument  or  adorn  a  moral."  He 
was  also  carefully  drilled  in  oratory,  and,  from  the  be- 
ginning, showed  that  he  possessed  the  highest  ability  as 
a  speaker.    One  of  his  first  rhetorical  efforts,  a  panegyric 


THE  PRINCE  OP  PREACHERS:    JOHN  CHRY808TOM,       87 

on  Constantine  and  his  sons,  won  unstinted  praise  from 
Libanius.  His  entrance  upon  his  chosen  profession  was 
marked  by  every  sign  of  a  successful  career.  Fame  and 
fortune  were  both  before  him.  Stephens  says :  "  The 
law  was  at  that  time  the  great  avenue  to  civil  distinc- 
tion. The  amount  of  litigation  was  enormous.  One 
hundred  and  fifty  advocates  were  required  for  the  court 
of  the  Pretorian  Prefect  of  the  East  alone.  The  display 
of  talent  in  the  law  courts  frequently  obtained  for  a  man 
the  government  of  a  province,  whence  the  road  was 
open  to  those  higher  dignities  of  Vice-prefect,  Prefect, 
Patrician,  and  Consul." 

But  as  John  was  nearing  twenty-three  years  of  age  he 
suddenly  underwent  a  great  change — an  out-and-out  and 
most  radical  conversion.  The  faithful  religious  instruc- 
tion which  he  had  received  from  childhood,  and  the  ex- 
traordinary influence  exerted  upon  him  by  his  intimate 
friend  Basil,  now  brought  forth  their  legitimate  fruit. 
Half-way  measures  did  not  satisfy  him.  He  not  only 
forswore  his  sins,  renounced  the  theater,  and  gave  up  all 
other  worldly  diversions,  but  he  also  abandoned  the  law, 
received  baptism  at  the  hands  of  Bishop  Meletius,  who 
had  recently  returned  from  exile,  and  was  appointed  to 
the  semi-clerical  office  of  reader  in  the  Church.  In  fact, 
had  it  not  been  for  the  urgent  and  affectionate  plead- 
ings of  his  mother,  he  would  at  once  have  become  a 
monk.  When  every  other  argument  had  failed  her,  she 
seated  him  on  the  very  bed  on  which  she  had  bonie  him, 
reminded  him  of  all  that  she  had  done  and  suffered  for 


88  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

his  sake,  and,  with  tears  in  her  eyes,  besought  him  not 
to  make  her  for  a  second  time  a  widow  by  withdraw- 
ing from  her  home.  Let  us  quote  her  very  words  as  he 
has  reported  them  to  us :  "I  was  not  long  permitted  to 
enjoy  the  virtue  of  thy  father,  my  child :  so  it  seemed 
good  to  God.  My  travail-pangs  at  your  birth  were 
quickly  succeeded  by  his  death,  bringing  orphanhood 
upon  thee,  and  upon  me  an  untimely  widowhood,  which 
only  those  who  have  experienced  them  can  fairly  under- 
stand. For  no  description  can  approach  the  reality  of 
that  storm  and  tempest  which  is  undergone  by  her  who, 
having  but  lately  issued  from  her  father's  home,  and 
being  unskilled  in  the  ways  of  the  world,  is  suddenly 
plunged  into  grief  insupportable,  and  compelled  to  en- 
dure anxieties  too  great  for  her  sex  and  age.  ...  I 
implore  you  this  one  favor  only — not  to  make  me  a 
second  time  a  widow,  or  to  revive  the  grief  which  time 
has  lulled.  Wait  for  my  death ;  perhaps  I  shall  soon  be 
gone.  "When  you  have  committed  my  body  to  the 
ground,  and  mingled  my  bones  with  your  father's  bones, 
then  you  will  be  free  to  embark  on  any  sea  you  please." 
Being  naturally  of  an  affectionate  disposition,  John  could 
not  resist  the  force  of  such  words;  he  yielded.  At 
the  same  time,  and  as  a  sort  of  offset  to  this  action,  he 
insisted  on  subjecting  himself  to  the  most  rigid  asceti- 
cism, putting  on  coai-se  garments,  sleeping  on  the  hai*d 
floor,  eating  only  the  plainest  food  and  that  at  long  inter- 
vals, and  giving  up  his  days  and  nights  to  incessant  prayer. 
In  this  "  amateur  monasticism  "  he  was  joined  by  three 


(THE  PRINCfi  01'  JREACflERS:   JOfiN  CHEYS08T0M.       S9 

other  young  friends — Basil,  Maximus,  and  Theodore — 
the  four  putting  themselves  under  the  superintendence 
of  Diodorus,  and  living  by  rule,  much  as  Wesley  and  the 
first  Methodists  did  at  Oxford. 

When  John  was  somewhere  between  twenty-five  and 
twenty-eight  years  of  age  he  was  singled  out  for  ordina- 
tion to  one  of  the  vacant  bishoprics  of  Syria.  A  like 
honor  was  thrust  upon  his  friend  Basil.  After  confer- 
ence together,  they  agreed  to  accept  the  preferment  and 
submit  to  ordination.  But  John  doubted  his  own  fitness 
for  the  work,  and  evaded  his  promise  in  a  most  unmanly 
way.  The  defense  which  he  subsequently  undertook  to 
make  of  his  conduct  exhibits  a  certain  suppleness  of 
conscience  and  a  sort  of  Oriental  freedom  in  dealing 
with  the  truth,  which  are  all  the  more  amazing  in  a  man 
whose  character  is  in  most  respects  so  lofty. 

Not  long  afterward,  his  mother  probably  having  died, 
he  carried  out  his  original  intention,  and  retired  for  six 
years  to  a  rugged  mountain  on  the  south  of  Antioch, 
where,  first  in  company  with  a  single  monk,  and  after- 
ward in  absolute  solitude,  he  sought  to  subdue  the  flesh 
and  to  lead  an  "angelical  life."  The  rigid  fasting  that 
he  practiced,  the  loss  of  sleep  from  which  he  suffered, 
and  the  terrible  cold  to  which  he  was  often  exposed, 
broke  down  his  constitution  and  sowed  the  seeds  of 
those  diseases  which  finally  compelled  him  to  return  to 
his  home,  and  which  afflicted  him  for  the  rest  of  his  life. 
I  cannot  stop  here  to  discuss  at  any  length  the  moral 
quality  of  these  excesses.    It  is  enough  to  say  that  the 


90  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

whole  conception  of  Christianity  from  which  they  spring 
finds  no  warrant  in  the  New  Testament.  Let  us  remem- 
ber, however,  in  charity  to  Chrysostom,  that  it  is  hard  for 
a  man  to  escape  from  the  spii-it  of  the  age  in  which  he 
lives;  and  let  us  not  forget  that  in  the  fourth  century 
there  was  an  almost  universal  admission  of  the  theory 
that  monasticism  is  the  highest  reach  of  religion. 

Scarcely  had  John  re-entered  Antioch,  when,  at  the 
earnest  solicitation  of  Meletius,  he  was  ordained  deacon. 
This  office  he  occupied  for  five  years,  enlarging  mean- 
time the  scope  of  his  knowledge,  pursuing  his  work  as 
an  author,  and  winning  favor  with  the  people  by  his 
sanctity  and  by  his  diligence.  As  he  approached  his 
fortieth  year,  having  reached  the  full  maturity  of  his 
affluent  intellectual  energy,  he  was  ordained  elder  by 
the  new  bishop,  Flavian,  and  appointed  to  preach  in  the 
Cathedral  Church.  He  had  at  last  found  his  vocation. 
That  he  did  not  find  it  sooner  is  a  marvel.  Probably  no 
man  ever  lived  who  possessed  more  of  the  elements  of 
a  great  j)opular  preacher.  "  His  personal  appearance 
was  dignified,  but  not  imposing.  His  stature  was  dimin- 
utive, his  limbs  long,  and  so  much  emaciated  by  early 
austerities  and  habitual  self-denial  that  he  compares 
himself  to  a  spider.  His  forehead  was  very  lofty  and 
furi'owed  with  wrinkles,  expanding  very  widely  at  the 
summit;  his  head  bald;  his  eyes  deeply  set,  but  keen 
and  piercing ;  his  cheeks  pallid  and  withered ;  his  chin 
pointed,  and  covered  with  a  short  beard."  He  was  not 
specially  profound,  and  he  lacked  the  usual  subtilit}'  of 


THE  PRINCE  OP  PREACHERS :   JOHN  CHRYS08T0M.       91 

the  Greek  race ;  but  he  had  vivid  intuitions,  a  bright  im- 
agination, fervid  sensibilities,  fluent  utterance,  and  an 
intensely  earnest  and  practical  purpose.  As  we  have 
already  said,  his  knowledge  of  Greek  literature  was 
extensive,  and  he  was  perfectly  at  home  in  the  sacred 
Scriptures.  The  technical  instruction,  moreover,  which 
Libanius  had  given  him  in  the  composition  and  delivery 
of  discourses  now  proved  to  be  of  great  use.  With  his 
first  sermon,  in  spite  of  its  glaring  rhetoric,  he  captured 
the  city,  and  for  ten  years  held  it  a  willing  prisoner  by 
his  eloquence.  During  this  whole  time  he  occupied  the 
pulpit  on  Saturday  and  Sunday  of  each  week,  besides 
officiating  daily  during  Lent  and  other  Church  festivals ; 
but  his  audiences  never  grew  weary  of  him.  Whenever 
he  appeared  the  multitudes  flocked  to  hear  him,  submit- 
ted themselves  to  the  gentle  fascination  of  his  speech, 
and  often  broke  out  into  rapturous  applause  at  the  beau- 
ty and  power  of  his  periods.  It  was  a  great  grief  to 
him  that  the  same  people  who  clapped  their  hands  when 
he  had  said  a  specially  good  thing  in  the  Church  often 
went  away  and  gave  no  further  heed  to  his  words.  The 
incessant  praise  that  was  heaped  upon  him  did  not  turn 
his  head.  He  knew  its  utter  emptiness,  protested  against 
it,  and,  in  language  that  reminds  us  of  Frederick  Eobert- 
son,  bewailed  the  fact  that  his  preaching  did  not  yield 
moi'e  substantial  fniit. 

To  the  year  387  belong  his  twenty-four  sermons  on 
the  Statues.  "  They  constitute  the  most  remarkable  se- 
ries of  homilies  delivered  by  him,  containing  his  grandest 


92  DISCtSSIOiJS  tN  Tti^OLOGlf. 

oratorical  flights,  and  evincing  most  strikingly  his  pow- 
er over  the  minds  and  passions  of  men."  The  circum- 
stances under  which  they  were  delivered  were  as  follows : 
The  Emperor  Theodosius  the  Great,  being  about  to  cel- 
ebrate the  successful  termination  of  the  first  decade  of 
his  reign,  had  demanded  of  the  city  of  Antioeh,  as  well 
as  of  other  provincial  capitals,  an  enormous  subsidy  to 
be  used  as  a  donative  to  the  army.  This  demand  was 
met  at  first  with  murmurs  of  discontent,  and  then  with 
loud  outcries  of  resistance.  Nothing  is  so  foolish  as  an 
excited  populace.  In  utter  forgetfulness  of  the  certain 
consequences  of  their  conduct,  a  great  concourse  of  citi- 
zens gathered  together,  attacked  the  Pretorium,  ran- 
sacked the  public  baths,  and  ended  by  tearing  down  the 
statues  of  Theodosius  and  his  deceased  wife,  Flaccilla' 
which  had  been  set  up  in  various  j)arts  of  the  city. 
Scarcely  had  they  finished  their  work,  when,  realizing 
what  they  had  done,  they  were  seized  with  a  terrible 
panic.  Of  a  sudden  all  business  ceased,  the  theaters 
were  closed,  the  streets  almost  deserted.  The  cruel  and 
resentful  nature  of  Theodosius  was  well  known.  Three 
years  later,  in  a  spasm  of  anger,  he  let  loose  his  soldiers 
upon  the  defenseless  citizens  of  Thessalonica  for  a  much 
less  serious  offense.  While  the  public  mind  was  in  this 
state  of  suspense,  the  oflScers  of  the  government,  present- 
ly re-enforced  by  two  special  commissioners  from  Con- 
stantinople, began  to  arrest  and  punish  all  who  were 
known  to  be  connected  with  the  riot,  and  to  subject  to 
the  most  terrible  tortures  even  those  who  were  only  sus- 


THE  PRINCE  OP  PREACHERS:   JOHN  CHRYS08T0M.       93 

pected  of  having  been  implicated  in  it.  It  was  rumored 
and  really  feared  that  the  emperor  meditated  burning 
down  the  city,  and  giving  over  the  inhabitants  en  masse 
to  the  tender  mercies  of  the  army. 

In  such  an  emergency,  what  could  be  done  ?  All  eyes 
turned  to  the  aged  Bishop  Flavian,  who  responded  most 
nobly  to  appeals  of  his  distressed  fellow-citizens.  Tear- 
ing himself  from  the  bedside  of  a  dying  sister,  he  has- 
tened to  Constantinople  to  intercede  for  mercy.  In  the 
meantime,  Chrysostom  rose  to  the  height  of  the  occa- 
sion. The  extraordinary  circumstances  gave  him  a 
grand  opportunity  to  deliver  a  message  to  the  people, 
and  he  used  it  well.  Every  day  he  was  in  the  pulpit, 
instructing,  reproving,  warning,  and  comforting  the 
dense  throngs  that  crowded  to  hear  him.  It  was  of 
these  discourses  that  a  learaed  modem  preacher  said : 
"  It  is  worth  while  learning  to  read  Greek  to  be  able  to 
peruse  them  in  the  original."  At  last,  near  the  end  of 
the  fourth  week,  Flavian  returned,  bearing  the  glad  ti- 
dings of  a  full  amnesty.  Relieved  of  the  pressure  of  anx- 
iety, giddy  and  fickle  Antioch,  most  giddy  and  fickle 
perhaps  of  all  the  Greek  cities  of  the  empire,  swung 
back  into  its  old  ways,  and  went  on  in  the  mad  pursuit 
of  pleasure,  as  if  there  were  no  other  end  in  human  life. 

Chrysostom  escaped  the  episcopacy  in  his  youth,  but 
it  caught  him  unawares  in  his  old  age.  He  had  reached 
fifty,  and  was  still  riding  the  topmost  wave  of  populari- 
ty in  Antioch,  when  Nectarius,  the  Bishop  of  Constanti- 
nople, died.    There  was  a  large  and  importunate  pack 


94  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

of  aspirants  for  tho  vacant  place,  which  was  practically 
at  the  disposal  of  Eutropius,  a  miserable  eunuch  who  had 
managed  to  push  himself  up  from  the  position  of  a  slave 
into  that  of  prime  minister  to  Arcadius,  the  son  and  suc- 
cessor in  the  East  of  Theodosius  the  Great.  The  usual 
method  of  Eutropius  was  to  dispose  of  all  oflfices  in  the 
Church  and  State  to  the  highest  bidder;  but  for  some 
reasons,  which  it  is  not  worth  while  to  try  to  find  out, 
he  now  turned  away  from  the  clamorous  candidates,  and 
resolved  that  Chrysostom,  whom  he  had  heard  on  a  re- 
cent visit  to  Antioch,  should  be  the  bishop  of  tho  capital. 
To  accomplish  this  end,  both  secrecy  and  force  were  nec- 
essary. It  was  divined  that  Chrysostom  himself  would 
be  averse  to  it;  and  that  the  people  of  Antioch,  who 
prized  him  as  they  would  have  prized  a  notably  good 
charioteer,  for  the  fame  he  brought  to  their  city,  did  not 
want  to  give  him  up.  He  was  therefore  invited  to  be 
present  at  some  special  services  at  the  tomb  of  a  martyr 
outside  the  city  walls ;  and  while  there  he  was  seized  by 
an  imperial  oflScer,  placed  under  guard,  and  hurried  off 
on  an  overland  journey  of  more  than  eight  hundred 
miles  to  Constantinople. 

As  further  resistance  would  have  been  useless,  he  qui- 
etly submitted  to  ordination,  and  entered  with  the  ut- 
most zeal  upon  the  duties  of  his  office.  For  a  time  it 
seemed  as  if  his  influence  at  Constantinople  was  to  sur- 
pass that  which  he  had  exercised  at  Antioch.  From  the 
emperor  and  the  empress  down  to  the  humblest  citizen, 
everybody  was  his  eulogist.    The  empress,  in  particular, 


THE  PRINCE  OF  PREACHERS:    JOHN  CHRY80ST0M.       95 

spared  no  pains  to  do  him  honor,  and  went  to  exagger- 
ated lengths  for  the  purpose  of  impressing  him  with  the 
belief  that  she  was  a  devout  and  earnest  Christian.  One 
of  her  freaks  was  a  vast  torch-light  procession,  in  which 
were  carried  the  relics  of  some  martyrs  to  the  martyry 
of  St.  Thomas,  situated  at  a  considerable  distance  out- 
side of  the  city.  The  procession  reached  its  destination 
just  as  day  was  dawning.  Chrysostom  at  once  mounted 
the  pulpit,  and  pronounced  an  almost  ecstatic  sermon. 
Here  is  a  sample  of  it :  "  What  shall  I  say  ?  I  am  verily 
mad  with  joy ;  yet  such  a  madness  is  better  than  even 
wisdom  itself.  Of  what  shall  I  most  discourse?  the  virt- 
ue of  the  martyi's,  the  alacrity  of  the  city,  the  zeal  of 
the  empress,  the  concourse  of  the  nobles,  the  worsting 
of  the  demons  ?  "Women,  more  delicate  than  wax,  leav- 
ing their  comfortable  homes,  emulated  the  stoutest  men 
in  the  eagerness  with  which  they  made  this  long  pil- 
grimage on  foot.  Nobles,  leaving  their  chariots,  their 
lictors,  their  attendants,  mingled  in  the  common  crowd. 
And  why  speak  of  them  when  she  who  wears  the  dia- 
dem and  is  arrayed  in  purple  has  not  consented  along 
the  whole  route  to  be  sepai-ated  from  the  rest  oven  by  a 
little  space,  but  has  followed  the  saints  like  their  hand- 
maid, with  her  finger  upon  the  shrine  and  upon  the  veil 
covering  it — she,  visible  to  the  whole  multitude,  whom 
not  even  all  the  chamberlains  of  the  palace  are  usually 
permitted  to  see  ?  " 

This  was  a  brilliant  beginning;  but  a  prophet  might 
have  foretold  that  it  could  not  last.     It  was  inevitable 


96  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

that  the  new  bishop  would  make  many  enemies.  The 
best  of  his  biographers  says:  "His  genius  was  not  of 
that  practical  order  which  displays  itself  in  great  dis- 
cernment of  character  and  tact  in  the  management  of 
men ;  and  his  virtues  were  of  that  austere  kind,  joined 
to  a  certain  irritability  of  temper  and  inflexibility  of 
will,  which  were  ill  calculated  to  first  conciliate,  and  then 
delicately  lead  on  to  a  purer  way  of  life  the  immature 
flock  committed  to  his  care."  His  first  work  was  to 
discipline  his  clergy  most  rigidly;  he  deposed  numbers 
of  them  from  office  for  dishonesty,  adultery,  homicide, 
and  other  such  shameless  crimes.  Thoroughly  a  monk 
at  heart,  he  despised  the  magnificent  style  in  which  his 
predecessor  had  lived,  and  sold  for  the  benefit  of  the 
poor  the  costly  carpets  and  plate  with  which  the  Epis- 
copal residence  had  been  furnished.  Averse  to  all  socie- 
ty, and  especially  to  that  of  the  rich  and  the  great,  he 
gave  no  splendid  banquets  to  the  laity,  and  attended 
none,  but  ate  his  frugal  meal  in  solitude  and  silence. 
Afflicted  with  disordered  nerves  and  a  deranged  diges- 
tion, he  frequently  lost  his  temper  and  forgot  the  value 
of  gentle  speech  and  conciliatory  methods  in  the  accom- 
plishment of  his  aims.  Living  the  life  of  a  recluse,  he 
depended  too  much  on  his  archdeacon,  Serapion,  for  in- 
formation as  to  current  events.  This  worthy  was  the 
naiTOwest  of  narrow  ecclesiastics,  a  born  absolutist,  a 
believer  in  authority,  and  in  nothing  else.  He  once  said 
to  Chiysostom :  "  You  will  never  subdue  these  mutinous 
priests,  my  Lord  Bishop,  till  you  drive  them  all  before 


THE  PRINCE  OP  PREACHERS  :   JOHN  CHRY808T0M.       97 

you  as  with  a  single  rod."  Such  advice,  if  followed,  can 
be  productive  of  only  one  result.  For  a  time  violent 
and  repressive  measures  may  succeed ;  but  they  end  al- 
ways in  resistance  and  reaction.  It  is  not  strange  that 
Chrysostom  found  himself  confronted  with  multiplying 
antagonisms. 

In  the  year  401  he  made  an  episcopal  visitation  of  the 
province  of  Asia  Minor,  and,  assuming  a  questionable 
metropolitan  power,  degraded  numerous  imworthy  bish- 
ops from  their  sees.  This,  of  course,  did  not  make  him 
popular.  In  his  absence  from  home,  moreover,  he  had 
intrusted  one  of  his  suffragan  bishops,  Severian  of  Gab- 
ala,  with  the  discharge  of  his  ordinary  duties.  This 
prelate,  unmindful  of  his  position  as  a  Christian  minis- 
ter and  of  the  sacred  obligations  of  friendship,  used  the 
opportunity  to  promote  his  own  interests,  and  to  alien- 
ate the  minds  of  Arcadius  and  his  wife,  Eudoxia,  from 
Chrysostom.  A  violent  scene  followed  on  Chrysostom's 
return.  As  soon  as  he  became  aware  of  the  facts,  and 
without  the  slightest  mixture  of  prudence  or  worldly 
wisdom,  he  arraigned  Severian  from  his  pulpit  as  a  flat- 
terer and  a  parasite,  and  even  spoke  the  sharpest  things 
of  Eudoxia  herself,  his  mind  evidently  having  undergone 
a  complete  change  as  to  her  character.  The  only  strange 
thing  is  that  he  did  not  correctly  measure  her  at  a  much 
earlier  date ;  for,  notwithstanding  her  excessive  religious- 
ness, the  flagrant  and  almost  public  licentiousness  of 
which  she  was  guilty  justly  exposed  her  to  the  severest 
criticism.  Preaching  on  a  text  taken  from  the  history 
7 


98  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

of  Elijah,  he  exclaimed :  "  Gather  together  to  me  those 
base  priests  that  eat  at  Jezebel's  table,  that  I  may  say  to 
them,  as  Elijah  of  old,  '  How  long  halt  ye  between  two 
opinions?  If  Jezebel's  table  be  the  table  of  the  Lord, 
eat  at  it ;  eat  at  it  till  you  vomit.'  "  The  allusion  was 
too  plain  to  be  misunderstood.  He  had  not  spoken  for 
the  purpose  of  being  misunderstood.  He  had  called  the 
empress  Jezebel.  Affront  could  go  no  further.  She  at 
once  resolved  to  be  revenged ;  and  with  a  woman's  un- 
dying persistency  she  did  not  stop  till  her  resolution  had 
been  carried  into  effect. 

An  opportunity  was  not  long  wanting.  It  came  about 
in  this  way.  The  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century  was 
agitated  by  a  controversy  concerning  the  orthodoxy  of 
Origen,  who  had  been  dead  for  one  hundred  and  forty 
years.  On  this  subject,  the  Egyptian  Church  in  partic- 
ular was  divided  into  two  hostile  factions.  Theophilus, 
the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  was  at  first  an  ardent  Or- 
igenist,  but  afterward,  for  purely  selfish  and  personal 
reasons,  swung  round  to  the  other  side.  The  monks  of 
the  Nitrian  desert,  on  the  upper  courses  of  the  Nile, 
among  whom  "  the  four  tall  brothers  "  were  the  most 
eminent,  were  steadfastly  devoted  to  the  teaching  and 
the  memory  of  the  great  allegorizing  father.  These 
monks  Theophilus  treated  with  the  most  barbarous 
cruelty,  showing  the  proverbial  zeal  of  a  pervert  in  the 
work  of  persecution.  Not  satisfied  with  using  ecclesi- 
astical weapons,  he  sent  soldiers  among  them,  who  broke 
up  their  monasteries,  put  many  of  them  to  death,  and 


THE  PRINCE  OF  PREACHERS:    JOHN  CHRYS08T0M.       99 

dispersed  the  rest  in  every  direction.  "The  four  tall 
brothers,"  accompanied  by  fifty  followers,  fled  to  Con- 
stantinople, where,  not  so  much  from  agreement  with 
their  views  as  from  sympathy  with  their  misfortunes, 
Chrysostom  befriended  them.  Theophilus  raised  a  howl 
of  indignation.  He  had  bitterly  opposed  the  appoint- 
ment of  Chrysostom  in  the  first  place,  and  had  all  along 
cherished  a  secret  grudge  against  him.  The  monks  ap- 
pealed to  the  civil  authorities  for  protection,  and  the 
affair  took  a  tortuous  course ;  but  at  last,  by  decree  of 
the  emperor,  a  synod  was  called  to  settle  it,  and  The- 
ophilus was  summoned  to  be  present.  Accompanied  by 
a  long  train  of  Egyptian  sailors,  who  were  ready  to  use 
their  rough  fists  in  defense  of  his  orthodoxy,  and  loaded 
with  treasures  to  be  used  as  bribes,  he  put  in  his  appear- 
ance three  weeks  in  advance  of  the  session.  With  great 
skill  he  had  already  enlisted  in  his  cause  the  aged  Epi- 
phanius.  Bishop  of  Salamis,  who  was  everywhere  much 
revered — a  bigoted  but  honest  man,  and  the  spiritual 
progenitor  of  the  whole  tribe  of  heresy  hunters — and  he 
loft  no  stone  unturned  to  secure  the  good-will  of  all 
other  influential  persons  who  came  within  his  reach. 

To  escape  the  possible  violence  of  a  mob  in  Constan- 
tinople, the  synod  met  at  a  place  called  the  Oak,  not  far 
from  the  city  of  Chalcedon,  on  the  other  side  of  the  bay. 
The  original  question  was  largely  lost  sight  of,  and  a 
series  of  twenty-nine  charges  was  preferred  against 
Chrysostom.  They  ranged  up  and  down  the  scale  of 
enormity.    One  of  them  was  that  he  had  eaten  a  lozenge 


100  DI80TT8SION8  IN  THEOLOGY. 

immediately  after  communion  ;  and  another,  that  he  had 
used  treasonable  language  against  the  empress.  Of  the 
forty  bishops  present,  all  but  seven  were  Egyptians,  and 
even  the  most  of  these  seven  were  the  personal  enemies 
of  Chrysostom.  Of  course  he  denied  their  jurisdiction, 
refused  to  appear  before  them  or  to  recognize  them  in 
any  way,  and  called  a  counter-assembly  of  sixty  bishops 
at  Constantinople.  Eight  and  justice  were  on  his  side, 
but  power  was  against  him.  Theophilus  knew  that 
Eudoxia  would  leap  at  a  chance  to  ruin  her  hated  en- 
emy. He,  therefore,  proceeded  with  indecent  haste  to 
finish  his  work,  pronounced  Chrysostom  deposed,  and 
asked  the  emperor  to  carry  out  the  decree. 

But  the  crafty  are  often  taken  in  their  own  craftiness. 
As  soon  as  the  news  reached  the  friends  of  Chrysostom, 
who  were  almost  as  numerous  as  the  middle  and  lower 
classes  of  the  city,  they  rose  up  in  resistance,  and  for 
three  days  guarded  the  episcopal  residence.  A  single 
word  from  him  would  have  produced  an  open  rebellion, 
but  he  counseled  peace;  and,  at  length,  to  forestall  the 
possibility  of  bloodshed,  he  stole  out  through  the  ranks 
of  his  friends  and  gave  himself  up  to  the  oflScers  of  the 
emperor,  and  was  transported  across  the  bay.  On  that 
very  night  there  was  a  great  earthquake.  The  super- 
stitious empress  accepted  it  as  an  omen  of  divine  dis- 
pleasure. God  himself — so  it  appeared  to  her — was 
interfering  in  behalf  of  his  persecuted  and  outraged 
servant.  With  a  sudden  revulsion  of  feeling,  she  threw 
herself  at  her  husband's  feet,  and  asked  for  the  recall  of 


THE  PRINCE  OP  PEEACHER8  :   JOHN  CHRYSOSTOM.      101 

Chrysostom.  Her  request  was  at  once  granted.  The 
tidings  of  this  fact  rapidly  spread  abroad,  and  the  surg- 
ing populace  turned  out  to  meet  and  greet  him  on  his 
return.  By  night-fall  the  whole  Hellespont  was  alive 
with  the  barges  and  ablaze  with  the  welcoming  torches 
of  his  friends.  When  the  shore  was  reached  they  raised 
him,  against  his  will,  upon  their  shoulders,  carried  him  to 
the  church,  and  forced  him  to  make  an  extemporaneous 
speech,  the  character  of  which  may  be  judged  from  one 
of  its  opening  sentences :  "  O  noble  flock,  in  the  shep- 
herd's absence  yo  have  put  the  wolves  to  flight."  He 
would  have  been  either  less  or  more  than  human  if  he 
had  not  been  moved  by  such  a  display  of  the  esteem  in 
which  he  was  held.    This  was  in  the  summer  of  403. 

Several  months  passed  away.  There  was  a  sort  of 
armistice,  but  no  peace.  Eudoxia,  as  soon  as  her  spasm 
of  superstitious  fear  had  abated,  again  nursed  her  wrath, 
and  bided  her  chance.  Inflamed  with  a  mad  and  foolish 
ambition,  she  caused  a  costly  statue  of  horeelf  to  be 
erected  on  a  lofty  porphyry  pillar  in  front  of  the  church 
of  St.  Sophia.  The  unveiling  of  this  statue  was  accom- 
panied with  the  most  unbounded  revelry,  the  noise  of 
which  even  penetrated  into  the  church  and  disturbed 
the  services.  Chrysostom  took  fire.  It  was  the  day  of 
John  the  Baptist,  and  the  sermon  was  in  harmony  with 
the  season.  "Again,"  said  the  fearless  bishop,  "  Herodias 
is  mad;  again  she  rages;  again  she  demands  the  head 
of  John  upon  a  charger."  After  such  an  uttei*ance  as 
this  compromise  was  impossible.    The  signal  of  war  had 


102  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

been  given,  and  the  enemies  of  the  great  preacher,  drawn 
together  by  the  common  and  inextinguishable  hatred 
which  they  bore  him,  flocked  into  the  capital  from  all 
directions.  A  new  council,  carefully  packed  by  the  cun- 
ning manipulation  of  Theophilus,  though  he  himself  re- 
mained away,  was  speedily  convened.  It  decreed  that 
the  original  deposition  of  Chrysostom  by  the  synod  of 
the  Oak  was  still  valid,  and  that  he  was,  therefore,  guilty 
of  the  additional  sin  of  contumacy  in  continuing  to  per- 
form the  functions  of  his  office  in  violation  of  the  canons 
of  the  Church.  To  carry  out  this  decree,  the  interposi- 
tion of  the  emperor  was  once  more  demanded.  After 
some  temporizing,  on  Easter  evening  of  404,  an  armed 
band  of  imperial  soldiers,  many  of  whom  were  pagans, 
broke  into  the  great  church,  where  three  thousand  cate- 
chumens were  awaiting  baptism,  dispereed  the  congre- 
gation with  much  bloodshed,  and  pursued  them  with 
cruel  rage  through  the  streets.  But  they  did  not  suc- 
ceed in  capturing  Chrysostom.  He  was  taken  under 
the  protection  of  his  zealous  adherents,  who  showed  so 
formidable  front  that  the  emperor  did  not  dare  to  renew 
the  attempt  to  lay  violent  hands  upon  him.  Things 
went  so  till  June. 

Once  more  the  magnanimity  of  Chrysostom' s  nature 
displayed  itself.  He  foresaw  that  there  was  likely  to  be 
a  terrible  conflict,  and,  to  avert  such  a  catastrophe,  he 
resolved  to  surrender  himself  voluntarily  to  the  malice 
of  his  enemies.  What  followed  is  enough  to  make  one's 
blood  boil  even  after  the  lapse  of  fifteen  centuries.     He 


THE  PRINCE  OP  PREACHERS  :   JOHN  CHRY80ST0M.      103 

was  put  under  a  military  guard,  and,  though  it  was  in  the 
heat  of  midsummer,  he  was  hurried  on  for  seventy  days 
without  comforts,  over  the  worst  of  roads,  through  the 
most  desolate  of  countries,  to  the  little  village  of  Cucusus, 
in  Lower  Armenia.  Of  the  awful  sufferings  that  he  en- 
dured from  heat  and  cold,  from  hunger  and  fatigue,  from 
weakness  and  disease,  during  the  three  years  of  his  stay 
at  this  place,  I  have  not  space  to  write.  Even  in  this 
remote  region,  however,  he  met  with  unexpected  kind- 
ness. One  of  the  best  houses  was  thrown  open  to  him. 
His  flock  at  Constantinople  and  his  foimer  parishioners 
at  Antioch  sent  him  supplies  of  money,  the  most  of 
which  he  nobly  used  for  other  purposes  than  to  supply 
his  own  wants.  Letters  of  sympathy  reached  him  from 
all  quarters.  Leo  the  Great,  of  Eomo,  not  only  wrote 
to  him  in  the  most  brotherly  spirit,  but  took  up  his 
cause,  and  demanded  his  restoration.  It  is  one  of  the 
wonderful  chaptere  of  history  that  this  bent  and  broken 
old  man,  though  geographically  isolated  from  the  world, 
should  have  continued  to  be  an  object  of  affectionate  re- 
gard to  many  thousands  of  people,  and  should  have 
wielded  an  influence  equal  to  that  of  any  bishop  in 
Christendom. 

At  Constantinople  his  friends  and  adherents  were  sub- 
jected to  many  indignities,  men  and  women  being  im- 
prisoned, tortured,  and  even  put  to  death  for  no  other  rea- 
son than  their  loyalty  to  him.  Into  his  office  was  thrust 
an  old  man  of  eighty  years,  Arsacius,  whom  Palladius 
affirms  to  have  been  "  as  mute  as  a  fish,  and  as  incapable 


104  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

as  a  frog."  Against  Chrysostom  himself,  also,  still  further 
steps  were  taken.  In  407  orders  were  given  that  he 
should  be  removed  to  Pityus,  on  the  north-eastern  corner 
of  the  Black  Sea,  the  limit  in  that  direction  of  the  em- 
pire. The  whole  distance  of  several  hundred  miles  was 
required  to  be  traveled  on  foot,  and  the  two  soldiers  who 
accompanied^him  as  guards  were  given  to  understand 
that  they  would  be  suitably  rewarded  if  their  prisoner 
died  on  the  way.  Only  the  shortest  delays  were  made. 
The  better  towns,  where  good  food  could  be  procured, 
were  avoided,  and  lodgings  were  taken  in  the  poorest  vil- 
lages. It  could  not  be  expected  that  Chrysostom  would 
bear  up  under  such  a  strain.  He  himself  did  not  expect 
it.  Prematurely  aged  (he  was  less  than  seventy),  racked 
with  disease,  enfeebled  by  a  thousand  cares,  ho  broke 
down  at  Comana,  before  the  sea  was  reached.  The  end 
was  pathetic  beyond  measure.  He  begged  his  guards  to 
allow  him  to  rest  till  eleven  o'clock,  but  they  rudely 
pushed  him  forward.  Even  to  them,  however,  it  soon 
became  apparent  that  he  could  go  no  farther,  and  so 
they  permitted  him  to  return.  When  he  knew  that  he 
was  dying  he  begged  to  be  carried  into  the  little  church, 
and  having  given  away  his  own  garments  to  the  spec- 
tators, he  requested  to  be  clothed  in  the  white  bap- 
tismal robes.  After  this  he  received  the  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  and  expired,  repeating  with  his  latest 
breath  the  saying  that  had  so  often  before  been  on  his 
lips:  "Glory  be  to  God  for  all  things!"  Thirty-one 
3'ears  later,  when  Proclus,  one  of  his  disciples,  had  be- 


THE  PRINCE  OF  PREACHERS  :  JOHN  CHRYS08T0M.      105 

come  bishop  at  Constantinople,  his  remains  were  taken 
up  and  translated  with  great  pomp  to  that  city.  In  less 
than  one  hundred  years  the  whole  Church,  Greek  and 
Latin,  had  learned  to  reverence  him  as  a  saint.  So  it 
ever  is.  One  generation  murders  the  prophets,  and  the 
next  garnishes  their  tombs.  "  It  is  a  sad  story,  so  often 
repeated  in  history,  of  goodness  and  greatness — unrecog- 
nized, slighted,  injured,  cut  short  in  a  career  of  useful- 
ness by  one  generation — abundantly,  but  too  late,  ac- 
knowledged in  the  next ;  when  posterity,  paying  to  the 
memory  and  the  tomb  the  honors  which  should  have 
been  bestowed  on  the  living  man,  can  only  utter  the  re- 
morseful prayer : 

'  His  saltern  accumulem  donis,  et  fungar  inani 

Munere.  .  .  .'" 
I  have  said  nothing  of  Chrysostom  as  a  theologian. 
On  the  Trinitarian  question  he  was  an  orthodox  Atha- 
nasian,  though  it  is  probable  that  if  he  had  lived  a 
quarter  of  a  century  later  he  would  have  leaned  toward 
Nestorianism.  In  common  with  all  the  great  men  of 
the  Greek  Church,  he  differed  from  Augustine  and  the 
leading  Latin  divines  in  regard  to  the  freedom  of  the 
human  will,  and  held  to  a  synergism  in  the  whole  proc- 
ess of  salvation.  As  an  exegete  and  a  commentator,  he 
set  the  type  for  many  successors,  adopting  the  gram- 
matical and  historical  method  of  the  school  of  Antioch, 
instead  of  the  allegorizing  fancies  of  Origen  and  the 
Alexandrians.  His  works,  including  nearly  one  thou- 
sand sermons,  fill  thirteen  folio  volumes  of  Migne's  Pa- 


106  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

trology.  The  two  best  biographies  available  to  the  En- 
glish student  are  that  of  Neander  (translated  from  the 
German,  and  published  by  Harper  &  Brothers)  and  that 
of  Eev.  "W.  E.  W.  Stephens.  The  last  mentioned  work 
was  published  by  John  Murray,  London,  1872,  but  has 
not  yet  been  reprinted  in  this  country.  There  is  also 
an  excellent  sketch  in  Dr.  Smith's  "  Dictionary  of  Chris- 
tian Biography,"  and  a  more  than  ordinarily  satisfactory 
outline  in  the  respective  histories  of  Milman,  Neander, 
Gieseler,  and  Schaff. 


THE  FAITH  OF  THE  ANTEDILU- 
VIAN PATRIARCHS, 

Accordingtothe  Hebrew  Narrative  in  Genesis. 


LECTURE  I. 

Our  subject  leads  us  to  view  faiths,  not  theories ;  to 
study  them  in  narratives,  not  in  theologies.  The  literary 
forms  in  which  these  narratives  are  presented,  beautiful 
and  fascinating  as  they  are,  have  no  claim  upon  our  at- 
tention in  our  present  investigation  except  so  far  as  they 
enshrine  the  faiths.  "We  seek  not  to  study  the  edifice, 
but  the  indwelling  powers.  Therefore  we  shall  pass  by 
much  which  the  curious  questioner  might  wish  to  have 
treated,  and  shall  fail  to  notice  much  that  some  might 
regard  essential.  We  would  allege  in  each  case  as  ex- 
cuse that  our  plan  of  treatment  required  none  of  these 
things. 

It  is  not  to  present  a  theology,  nor  a  part  of  a  the- 
ology, which  is  our  assumed  task.  "We  shall  study  faiths, 
connected  at  first  not  with  theological  systems,  but  with 
living  men ;  the  faiths  which  Adam  and  Eve  held ;  Abel, 
Cain,  and  Lamech  knew;  Enoch  and  Noah  obeyed. 
These  faiths  are  the  earliest  faiths  of  the  human  heart, 
and  so  constitute  the  great  significance  of  these  ear- 
liest personages  to  the  Hebrew ;  they  are,  therefore,  the 


108  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

chiefest  glory  of  these  patriarchs  in  the  mind  of  after 
ages.  Other  nations  remembered  only  heroes  who  were 
great  in  deeds,  but  the  Hebrews  cherished  those  who 
were  great  in  faiths.  And  these  earliest  worthies  among 
the  Hebrews  stand  as  light-towers,  flashing  forth  faiths 
that  illumined  the  human  heart  when  man  directed  first 
his  thoughts  toward  God.  Briefly,  then,  we  may  sum  up 
the  pui*po8e  in  those  investigations  as  a  study  of  the 
faiths  of  those  who  first  worshiped  Jehovah.  These 
faiths  were  the  guiding  faiths  of  their  lives.  They  are, 
therefore,  very  attractive ;  yet  not  attractive  alone,  but 
unutterably  precious,  since  the  faiths  which  once  gave 
light  to  the  human  heart,  as  it  felt  out  in  darkness  after 
God,  may  be  ever  accounted  helpful  to  those  who  come 
after,  and  must  be  so,  if  these  faiths  be  a  part  of  Eevela- 
tion. 

Our  method  of  presentation  will  be  simple.  We  will 
treat  only  of  the  faiths  of  the  antediluvian  patriarchs. 
There  are  two  classes  of  these :  those  learned  in  Eden, 
and  those  uttered  after  the  expulsion  from  Eden  and  be- 
fore the  flood. 

Faiths  Taught  in  Eden. 

First  Faith. — God  is  Creator,  man  the  creature  likest 
him. 

In  the  beginning  Grod  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth. 

These  are  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  when 
they  were  created ;  in  the  day  when  Jehovah  God  made  the 
heavens  and  the  earth. 

These  passages  furnish  the  statement  of  the  earliest 
belief  in  God  as  the  Creator,  if  we  confine  ourselves  to 


THE  FAITH  OF  THE  ANTEDILUVIAN  PATRIARCHS.      109 

the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  The  same  creative  act  is  attrib- 
uted, in  the  two  passages,  to  God  and  also  to  Jehovah 
God.  The  two  names,  then,  refer  to  the  same  personal 
being.  The  account  of  the  creation  of  the  heavens  and 
the  earth,  as  portrayed  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis, 
is  simple,  is  sublime.  It  has  ever  awakened  wonder  in 
the  human  mind  by  its  beauty  and  comprehensiveness. 
A  study  of  the  record  of  creation,  as  preserved  in  nature, 
brings  to  light  remarkable  resemblances  to  this  record  of 
Scripture.  Many  regard  both  accounts  identical  in  all 
essentials.  Yet  not  merely  to  teach  us  the  order  of  the 
creative  work  of  God  was  this  record  of  creation  kept, 
but  to  make  us  aware  of  that  fundamental  faith  in  God 
which  was  earliest  with  the  human  race,  and  without 
which  there  could  be  no  sure  ground  for  faith  in  Jehovah 
God.  It  is  therefore,  for  our  purpose,  simply  a  side  issue 
to  inquire  here  whether  the  creative  day  and  the  geolog- 
ical period  are  interchangeable  terms ;  also  whether  the 
work  in  a  creative  day  and  a  geological  period  is  iden- 
tical. The  primary  questions  are  whether  in  this  record 
of  Scripture  God  is  worthily  presented  to  our  minds,  and 
also  whether  the  presentation  has  fact  at  its  basis. 

Notice  the  stupendous  and  amazing  character  of  the 
Creator's  works.  The  silent  stars  of  the  night,  innumer- 
able in  number,  immeasurable  in  distance,  were  made  by 
God.  The  vast  waters,  swarming  with  countless  forms 
of  life,  rising  in  their  rage  into  resistless  sublime  powers, 
were  made  by  God.  The  fruitful  earth,  declaring  plan 
and  purpose  in  every  plant,  and  dazzling  the  mind  with 


110  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

its  infinite  variety  of  all  life,  was  made  by  God.  Such 
is  the  God  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  Alone  He  stands 
in  the  midst  of  His  works,  and  their  glory  declares  the 
incomprehensible  majesty  of  their  Creator.  The  fact  of 
the  universe  is  the  basal  fact,  according  to  the  Hebrews, 
for  belief  in  God.  The  unspeakable  worthiness  of  what 
he  made  manifests  the  exalted  worthiness  of  their  Maker. 
The  second  part  of  this  Hebrew  faith,  that  the  creat- 
ure man  is  likest  God  who  made  him,  rests  on  the  fol- 
lowing passages : 

And  God  said, 

"  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness, 

And  let  him  have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea, 

And  over  the  fowl  of  the  heavens  and  over  beasts. 

And  over  all  the  earth  and  over  all  that  creepeth  on  the  earth." 

And  Jehovah  God  said : 

"  It  is  not  good  that  man  should  be  alone, 

I  will  make  for  him  help  like  to  him." 

Having  likeness  to  God,  man  possesses  fitness  for  do- 
minion ;  God  gives  him  a  domain.  Man  shall  rule  over 
the  fish,  over  the  fowl,  over  the  beasts,  over  the  earth. 
The  likeness  is  found  in  man's  personality.  Dominion, 
the  exercise  of  the  power  by  this  person  man  over  other 
creatures,  is  but  one  phase  of  the  activity  of  this  person- 
ality. If  we  define  all  the  possibilities  of  this  human 
personality,  then  only  have  we  an  adequate  and  com- 
plete understanding  of  this  likeness.  The  grandeur  of 
this  truth  is  belittled  when  we  seek  to  confine  it  to  the 
limits  of  certain  ethical  qualities.  Like  God  in  righteous- 
ness ?  yes  J  in  holiness  ?  yes ;  but  still  in  both  attributes  of 


THE  FAITH  OF  THE  ANTEDILUVIAN  PATBIAECH8.      Ill 

character  we  are  infinitely  less  than  he.  There  are,  in- 
deed, other  resemblances  which  combine  to  constitute 
this  likeness.  "We  may  not  limit  this  man-elous  state- 
ment of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  The  likeness  of  man  to 
his  Creator  is  not  limited  to  any  one  or  any  select  num- 
ber of  the  powers  and  attributes  of  personality.  Man  is 
like  God  in  possessing  all  of  them.  He  is  unlike  God, 
however,  in  having  the  limitations  of  flesh. 

Beautiful  now  appears  the  reciprocal  relations  be- 
tween God  and  man.  All  that  God  has  made  become 
incentives  to  call  forth  the  activities  of  man.  God  calls 
into  life  the  luxuriant  beauties  of  the  flowers.  Man 
cannot  produce  them  alive  save  from  the  seed,  but  he 
may  cut  out  their  shape  in  stone,  and  may  even  give 
them  their  color  and  form  on  the  canvas.  Man  receives 
hints  from  the  works  of  God,  and  then  creates  works  of 
his  own.  Again,  God  pours  down  his  "  rain  on  the  just 
and  the  unjust."  Man  sees  the  impartiality  of  God  in 
caring  for  the  necessities  of  his  creatures,  and  learns 
from  this  likewise  to  have  a  provident  care  over  others 
in  matters  of  necessity.  If  man  was  not  prompted  first 
by  suggestion  from  God  to  make  provision  for  the  help- 
less, reflection  upon  God's  doing  would  teach  him  that 
in  so  acting  ho  simply  follows  him  whose  likeness  he 
bears.  Such  is  the  faith  concerning  man  which  the  He- 
brew Scriptures  present.  Would  we  know  God  ?  Then 
truly  know  man.  Would  we  know  man?  Then  tinily 
know  God.  Advance  of  reliable  knowledge  in  either 
realm  assures  advance  in  the  other. 


112  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

It  is  not  too  venturesome  a  claim  to  affirm  that  the 
primary  condition  for  a  universal  religious  faith  is  the 
conviction,  based  on  indisputable  grounds,  that  man  bears 
the  image  of  his  Maker.  Such  a  condition  is  met  by  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures.  Its  antithesis  is  found  in  the  pagan 
world.  Man  by  nature  makes  God  anthropomorphic ; 
man  under  revelation  seeks  to  make  man  Godlike.  Man 
by  nature  makes  for  himself  a  Pantheon,  where  is  rep- 
resented the  deification  of  every  mysterious  power  which 
he  may  behold ;  but  man  through  revelation  forms  for 
himself  scriptures,  where  God  becomes  manifest,  and 
man,  by  beholding,  is  changed  into  his  likeness.  The 
loving  disciple  John  declares  that  "we  shall  be  like 
Him."  Christian  faith  believingly  cherishes  his  con- 
fident utterance.  The  oldest  hope  of  the  human  heart, 
nourished  by  revelation,  is  that  we  may  return  to  our 
first  estate,  that  we  again  may  have  "  the  image  of  God." 

When  beholding  this  magnificent  endowment  con- 
ferred on  man  by  his  Creator,  as  recorded  in  Genesis, 
we  may  not  be  unmindful  of  the  characters  which  sep- 
arate man,  as  he  is  related  to  the  earth  and  time,  from 
his  Maker.  Sex,  and  all  upon  which  sex  is  conditioned, 
differentiates  man  from  God  and  relates  man  to  the  animal 
world  at  least.  He  is  denizen  of  the  earth,  for  from  it 
he  was  made.  All  with  a  conscious  nature,  dependent 
upon  a  physical  organism,  has  relationship  to  him.  But 
by  virtue  of  his  likeness  to  God  he  is  claimant  upon  the 
inhabitants  of  the  skies.  The  nobler  activities  which 
they  pursue  he  is  capable  of  in  his  degree,  and  longs  to 


THE  FAITH  OF  THE  ANTEDILUVIAN  PATBIAKCHS.       113 

bo  participant  with  them  in  the  noble  services  and  joys. 
His  mortal  coil  ho  will  drop,  he  will  associate  with  all 
who  have  the  likeness  of  God;  yea,  be  in  communion 
with  God  himself,  and  all  this  because  he  was  created 
in  the  *'  image  of  God."  Such  is  the  promise  enshrined 
in  this  first  faith  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 

Second  Faith. — Jehovah  God,  the  bountiful  Provider, 
gives  man  the  earliest  commandment,  revealing  at  the 
same  time  the  consequences  of  disobedience. 

And  Jehovah  God  had  made  grow  out  of  the  ground 

Every  tree  that  is  pleasant  to  the  sight  and  good  for  food ; 

And  the  tree  of  life  is  in  the  midst  of  the  garden, 

And  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil. 

And  Jehovah  Grod  commanded  the  man,  saying, 

**  Of  every  tree  of  the  garden  thou  mayest  eat  freely ; 

But  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil 

Thou  shalt  not  eat  from  it ; 

For  in  the  day  thou  eatest  from  it, 

Thou  shalt  surely  die." 

These  passages  in  Genesis  presuppose  that  Jehovah 
God  is  known  to  man  as  Creator.  This  knowledge  must 
be  presupposed  in  order  that  the  earliest  commandment 
might  have  authority.  The  first  faith  is  the  necessary 
forerunner  to  this  second  faith.  The  Hebrew  heart 
cherished  the  Creator  who  was  also  the  bountiful  Pro- 
vider. Jehovah  God  lovingly  cares  for  the  creature 
man.  There  is  no  antagonism  hero  between  God  and 
man,  such  as  heathen  mythology  and  faiths  present. 
Harmony  and  love  prevail. 

Man,  according  to  the  Hebrew  view,  has  a  physical 
8 


114  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

nature.  He  is  formed  from  the  ground.  Every  tree  in 
the  garden,  planted  by  Jehovah  God  himself,  and  grow- 
ing out  of  the  ground,  is  food  for  the  nourishment  of 
this  physical  nature.  But  man  also  has  a  spiritual  nat- 
ure. Jehovah  God  "  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath 
of  life."  The  bountiful,  provident  Creator  must  also  pro- 
vide for  the  nourishment  of  this  spiritual  nature.  There 
are  two  trees  in  the  midst  of  the  garden.  It  is  said  that 
they  grew  out  of  the  ground.  It  is  said,  also,  that  they 
are  different — yea,  sacred — and  must  not  be  touched. 
How  are  we  to  understand  this  narrative  ?  The  question 
is  old.  The  Church  is  by  no  means  a  unit  in  its  answer. 
Any  view  must  be  tentatively  held.  The  trend  of  mean- 
ing, however,  must  be  essentially  the  same,  whatever  be 
the  minor  differences,  in  all  views  which  are  in  harmony 
with  revealed  religion.  The  narrative  is  no  pretty  po- 
etic fiction;  it  embodies  serious  and  momentous  truth. 
Here  is  enshrined  the  elements  of  a  fundamental  relig- 
ious faith.  The  exegeto  must  take  his  facts  from  the 
narrative,  in  the  most  original  form  in  which  it  is  pre- 
served. The  data  for  conclusion  must  bo  drawn  from 
this  source. 

The  Hebrew  narrative  requires  that  those  two  trees 
shall  have  grown  out  of  the  ground.  So  it  must  at  the 
outset  be  conceded  that  there  is  no  necessity  for  conclud- 
ing these  trees  to  be  other  than  veritable  trees.  Howev- 
er, no  sure  ground  is  thus  far  obtained  to  warrant  the 
conclusion  that  the  two  trees  are  not  removed  to  the  re- 
gion of  symbols.    These  trees  are  defined:  one  is  the 


THE  FAITH  OF  THE  ANTEDILUVIAN  PATRIARCHS.      116 

tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil;  the  other  is  the 
tree  of  life.  Such  trees  cannot  appeal  to  the  sense  of 
taste.  The  tongue  cannot  taste  knowledge.  The  forbid- 
den fruit  of  these  trees,  then,  can  be  tasted  only  by 
mind,  by  spirit.  Yet  this  tasting  by  the  spirit  is  condi- 
tioned on  the  physical  act  of  tasting.  It  would  seem, 
therefore,  the  more  reasonable  to  accept  that,  when  the 
narrative  speaks  of  eating  from  the  tree  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  good  and  evil,  the  language  is  figurative.  The 
fact — knowledge  of  good  and  evil — is  not  a  physical  but 
a  spiritual  one.  The  eating,  then,  is  not  a  physical  but 
a  spiritual  process.  Choice  would  be  as  much  present  in 
the  spiritual  process  of  eating  as  in  the  physical.  It 
would  precede. 

There  is  significance  in  the  fact  that  whatever  is  rep- 
resented here  is  behold  only  at  the  center  of  things — 
"  in  the  midst  of  the  garden."  Elsewhere  it  was  possi- 
ble to  acquire  only  the  knowledge  of  good.  All  that 
Jehovah  God  had  made  was  good.  One  place  alone  fur- 
nished the  possibility  of  procuring  the  knowledge  of 
good  and  evil.  It  was  at  the  middle  of  the  garden,  the 
place  of  prohibition  and  of  loving  warning. 

The  compound  idea — good  and  evil — must  not  be  hur- 
riedly passed.  Jehovah  God  is  known  to  man  as  Creat- 
or, bountiful  Provider,  and  loving  Admonishor.  Man 
also  must  know  good.  Every  thing  made  was  good,  ac- 
cording to  the  judgment  of  the  Creator  himself  All 
that  man  saw  was  good.  Every  judgment  upon  what 
ho  saw  must  have  been  good.    Nothing  could  be  looked 


116  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

at  which  was  evil,  yet  it  was  possible  to  know  good  and 
evil.  Jehovah  God  forewarns  man  of  this  possibility, 
and  tells  him  of  the  direful  consequence  which  such 
knowledge  would  entail.  If  man  made  choice  contrary 
to  the  commandment,  he  could  not  thereby  erase  the 
knowledge  of  good.  The  compound  idea — good  and  evil 
— would  ever  witness  to  him  his  likeness  to  God,  would 
ever  remind  him  of  his  lineage.  Yet  this  very  com- 
pound idea,  when  once  learned  through  choice,  and  not 
as  warning,  would  be  death. 

This  second  faith,  then,  teaches  us  that  in  the  begin- 
ning Jehovah  God  was  near  to  man,  providing  for  him, 
warning  him.  Man  could  also  be  disloyal  to  him,  and 
so  man  could  die. 

Third  Faith. — A  personal  power,  named  the  serpent, 
beguiles  mankind. 

And  he  (the  serpent)  said  to  the  woman : 

"  Is  it  true  that  God  said, 

'  Ye  shall  not  eat  from  every  tree  of  the  garden  ? ' " 

And  the  woman  said  to  the  serpent : 

"  From  every  tree  of  the  garden  we  may  cat ; 

But  from  the  fruit  of  the  tree, 

Which  is  in  the  midst  of  the  garden,  God  hath  said : 

" '  Not  shall  ye  eat  from  it, 

And  not  shall  ye  touch  it,  lest  ye  die.' " 

Then  the  serpent  said  to  the  woman  : 

"  Ye  shall  not  die,  for  God  knows 

That  when  ye  shall  eat  from  it 

Your  eyes  shall  be  opened, 

And  ye  shall  be  as  God,  knowing  good  and  evil." 

And  when  the  woman  saw  that  the  tree  was  good  for  food, 


THE  FAITH  OP  THE  ANTEDILUVIAN  PATRIARCHS.      117 

and  that  it  was  pleasant  to  the  eyes,  and  a  tree  to  be  desired  to 
make  one  wise,  she  took  of  the  fruit  thereof,  and  did  eat,  and 
gave  also  unto  her  husband  with  her,  and  he  did  eat.  Then  the 
eyes  of  them  both  were  opened,  and  they  knew  that  they  were 
naked. 

The  woman  stands  before  the  tree  of  the  knowledge 
of  good  and  evil.  The  tree,  as  a  tree,  had  fruit  thereon. 
The  eating  of  such  fruit  would  induce  no  other  physical 
result  than  the  eating  of  fruit  from  any  other  similar 
tree.  But  the  tree  had  no  special  significance  through 
its  appeal  by  means  of  its  fruit  to  the  physical  sense  of 
taste.  It  bore  fruit  which  the  physical  eye  could  not 
see  nor  the  physical  tongue  taste.  This  peculiar  finiit 
was  desirable  "  to  make  one  wise."  The  manner  of  par- 
taking this  fruit  is  through  eating  the  natural  fruit  on 
the  trees.    The  fact  that  it  could  be  partaken  is  asserted. 

It  should  not  seem  strange  that  Jehovah  God  should 
set  apart  two  trees  for  special  use.  This  peculiar  pur- 
pose would  usurp  the  natural  purpose  of  the  trees. 
Men  dwelt  in  tents  in  later  times.  One  tent,  however, 
was  set  aside  for  special  purpose.  Men  entered  this 
tent,  but  all  its  uses  were  different  from  those  uses  to 
which  men  put  the  common  tent.  Language  is  em- 
ployed for  this  special  sacred  tent  similar  to  that  em- 
ployed for  other  tents.  If,  however,  a  man  enters  this 
sacred  tent,  it  is  with  other  feelings  than  those  ho  has 
when  entering  his  own  tent.  The  same  may  bo  said  of 
that  special  house  set  apart  for  the  house  of  Jehovah. 
Our  conclusion  is  that  those  trees  in  the  garden  had  as 


118  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

special  a  function  as  the  special  tent  or  the  special  house. 
The  language  employed  in  connection  with  these  trees 
must  likewise  have  special  and  new  meaning.  The  eat- 
ing from  these  trees  must  be  a  process  diflFerent  from  a 
mere  physical  process,  yet  it  is  contemporaneous  and  con- 
ditioned on  eating  the  fruit,  which  appealed  to  the  phys- 
ical sense  of  taste. 

The  serpent  is  no  crawling  reptile,  endowed  for  the 
time  being  with  the  power  of  speech.  He  is  a  personal- 
ity as  veritable  as  the  woman  or  the  man.  He  must 
have  assumed  a  form  as  noble — yea,  nobler — than  that  of 
man,  else  the  woman  could  not  have  remained  in  con- 
verso  with  him.  Such  supposition  is  necessary,  else  the 
narrative  contains  such  absurdities  that  it  is  more  rea- 
sonable to  accept  that  the  whole  narrative  is  a  poetic 
fiction  for  the  retainment  of  a  spiritual  truth.  This 
person,  the  serpent,  is  at  variance  with  God,  He  is  ac- 
quainted with  the  garden.  He  understands  the  language 
which  is  intelligible  to  the  woman.  These  are  funda- 
mental assumptions,  if  the  narrative  deals  with  facts. 

The  serpent  knew  the  commandment  given  by  Jeho- 
vah God  to  man.  It  was  the  commandment  placed  by 
God  upon  all  created  personalities,  upon  himself  as  well 
as  upon  all  others.  He  had  disobeyed  the  command- 
ment. He  was  at  that  moment  in  punishment.  He 
was  at  enmity  with  God,  and  always  this  is  punishment. 
He  who  asks  knew  that  God  had  given  this  command- 
ment. Her  answer  is  emphatic  and  certain.  Not  eat- 
ing alone,  but  touching  the  tree  was  death.     Contact 


THE  FAITH  OP  THE  ANTEDILUVIAN  PATRIABCHS.      119 

was  destructive.  Such  was  the  understanding  by  the 
woman.  The  resultant  utterance  of  the  serpent  is :  "  Yo 
shall  not  surely  die."  This  assertion  makes  man  as  a 
personality  a  battle-ground.  Two  mighty  personalities 
are  the  contestants.  They  are  from  root  up  antagonist- 
ic. One  expresses  himself  respecting  an  act :  "  Do  it, 
and  thou  shalt  surely  die."  The  other  says,  respecting 
the  same  act :  "  Do  it,  and  thou  shalt  not  die." 

Mankind  is  influenced  to  choice  by  motive.  Such  mo- 
ments are  ever  critical  to  him.  Two  voices  have  spoken 
to  him.  The  one  has  said,  "  Thou  shalt  not  eat ; "  the 
other  has  said,  "Thou  mayest  cat."  The  motive  pre- 
sented by  the  one  who  commanded  not  to  eat  was  that 
death  ensued  upon  the  eating.  The  motive  urged  by 
the  other,  who  counseled  eating,  was  that  the  eating 
made  the  partaker  as  God.  So  far  as  experience  went, 
mankind  was  equally  ignorant  of  both  conditions.  He 
did  not  know  what  it  was  to  die,  or  what  it  was  to  be 
like  God,  excej)t  by  inference.  Death  Avas  the  opposite 
of  life.  Yet  the  contrast  was  no  greater  than  that  fur- 
nished by  the  difference  between  man  and  God.  These 
arc  fundamental  acknowledgments. 

Two  contradictory  voices  are  heard  by  mankind.  Two 
motives  are  urged  upon  mankind — the  one  negative,  the 
other  positive.  Choice  brought,  according  to  the  one, 
awful  loss;  according  to  the  other,  greatest  gain.  If 
truth  was  uttered  by  both  voices,  then  mankind  made 
the  best  choice  in  eating.  To  bo  like  God  was  to  bo 
their  highest  ideal.     But  one  limitation,  according  to 


120  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

the  serpent,  separated  them  from  this  high  attainment. 
It  was  the  "knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  This  could  be 
removed  by  eating  of  this  tree.  Seductive  indeed  was 
the  temptation.  No  penalty  and  to  be  like  God  were 
the  inducements.    Mankind  chose  to  be  like  God. 

The  serpent  introduced  the  first  lie  into  human  life. 
The  act  which  he  affirmed  would  make  man  "  like  God  " 
was  the  act  which  made  man  as  unlike  God  as  was  pos- 
sible. There  is  no  doubt  but  that  this  understanding  of 
the  narrative  was  accepted  by  Christ.  The  foundation 
is  here  for  his  assertion  that  the  devil  was  a  "  liar  and 
the  father  of  it."  The  character  of  the  serpent  is  un- 
changeable. He  is  false  at  the  core.  His  weapon  in  bat- 
tle is  the  lie.    So  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  represent  him. 

The  fall  of  man  may  rightly  suggest  the  question 
whether  Jehovah  God  had  providently  protected  man 
against  the  deceptive  power  of  Satan.  The  answer  is 
clear.  The  hourly  experience  of  man  must  have  demon- 
strated that  Jehovah  God,  whom  ho  knew,  would  have 
withheld  nothing  that  could  have  contributed  to  his 
blessedness.  The  fullness  of  all  the  gifts  of  God  and  the 
conscious  knowledge,  through  experience,  that  these  all 
were  good  had  as  a  natural  sequence  the  awakening  of 
an  absorbing  love,  which  would  have  had  as  its  peculiar 
manifestation  a  perfect  obedience.  The  only  protection 
against  the  fall,  which  was  possible  but  was  not  provid- 
ed, would  have  been  to  have  made  the  fall  impossible. 
There  are  laws  over  our  body  beyond  the  control  of  man. 
We  must  breathe,  we  must  eat,  if  wo  would  live.    Wo 


THE  FAITH  OP  THE  ANTEDILUVIAN  PATRIARCHS.      121 

cannot  walk  in  the  air.  We  cannot  live  under  water. 
It  might  have  been  decreed  that  we  could  not  have  dis- 
obeyed. Such  decree,  however,  would  have  made  im- 
possible the  creation  of  man  in  the  image  of  God.  Apart 
from  the  enactment,  which  would  have  made  it  impossi- 
ble to  have  disobeyed,  every  motive  and  every  induce- 
ment which  Jehovah  God  could  have  employed  to  pro- 
tect man  was  employed.  Man  was  surrounded  by  every 
object  which  could  awaken  only  love  for  hia  God.  He 
fell,  because  he  would  be  as  the  highest  and  best  he  knew, 
because  he  would  be  as  God.  This  is  the  stand-point 
which  is  taken  by  the  first  book  of  the  Hebrew  Script- 
ures. 

We  are  not  left  in  doubt  as  to  the  exact  change  which 
took  place  in  man  by  his  choice  to  disobey  Jehovah 
God.  Man  knew  hereby  good  and  evil.  Such  knowl- 
edge was  his  death.  To  know  good  alone  was  life;  to 
know  evil  alone  was  impossible,  since  his  birthright  gift 
was  to  know  good.  Memory  must  ever  have  retained 
such  knowledge  for  man.  The  moment  he  learned  good 
and  evil  by  experience,  that  moment  he  was  transferred 
to  the  realm  of  conflict,  of  struggle,  of  death.  We  are 
now  in  position  to  give  the  definition  of  good  and  evil 
according  to  the  earliest  Hebrew  beliefs.  The  knowl- 
edge of  good  is  obedience  to  Jehovah  God ;  the  knowl- 
edge of  good  and  evil  is  disobedience  to  him. 

The  faiths  abeady  considered  have  shown  us  that  man, 
although  possessed  of  such  knowledge  of  Jehovah  God 
as  to  win  him  ever  to  an  increasing  love  for  his  Creator, 


122  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOQT. 

had  nevertheless  been  led  to  disobedience.  A  new  phase  of 
revelation  is  now  inaugurated.  Man  is  to  be  taught  the 
attitude  of  Jehovah  God  to  his  disobedient  creatures. 
The  next  faith  embodies  this  lesson. 

Fourth  Faith. — Jehovah  God  is  true  and  just.  For 
truth's  sake  he  punishes  disobedience ;  for  justice's  sake 
he  punishes  deception  and  gives  promise  upon  confession. 

This  faith  will  be  considered  in  this  lecture  only  as  the 
occurrences  in  the  garden  make  it  manifest. 

And  Jehovah  God  called  to  the  man  and  said  to  him : 

"Where  art  thou?" 

And  he  said : 

«  Thy  voice  I  heard  in  the  garden,  and  I  feared  because  I  was 
naked,  and  I  hid  myself." 

And  he  said : 

"Who  told  thee  that  thou  wast  naked?  Hast  thou  eaten  of 
the  tree,  whereof  I  commanded  thee,  that  thou  sliouldst  not 
eat?" 

And  the  man  said : 

"The  woman  whom  thou  gavest  to  be  with  me  she  gave  to 
me  of  the  tree,  and  I  did  eat." 

And  the  Jehovah  God  said  to  the  woman : 

"What  is  this  thou  hast  done?" 

And  the  woman  said  : 

"The  serpent  deceived  me,  and  I  did  eat." 

Jehovah  God  calls  to  man.  He  asks :  "  Whore  art 
thou  ?  "  Man  heard,  man  feared,  man  hid  himself.  The 
new  feeling  experienced  by  man  after  disobedience  was 
fear  of  Jehovah  God.  The  new  conduct  on  his  part  was 
the  hiding  of  himself  at  the  voice  of  God.    This  conver- 


THE  FAITH  OF  THE  ANTEDILUVIAN  PATBIARCHS.      123 

sation  with  Jehovah  God  has  the  same  kind  of  reah'ty  as 
the  conversation  with  the  serpent.  The  higher  and  the 
highest  order  of  intelligent  beings  may  assume  form  and 
80  enter  conversation  with  man.  Such  is  the  assumption 
of  this  narrative.  The  new  experience  of  fear,  the  new 
conduct  of  hiding,  have  their  sufficient  cause  in  man's 
disobedience.  Jehovah  God  knew  that  man  had  diso- 
beyed. Man  therefore  must  answer  before  him,  face  to 
face,  for  his  conduct.  Hence  the  question :  "  Hast  thou 
oaten  of  the  tree  whereof  I  commanded  thee,  that  thou 
shouldst  not  eat  ?  "  This  question  faces  Adam  with  the 
command  and  also  with  the  opportunity  for  confession 
or  denial.  The  answer  was  a  frank  confession.  It  was : 
"  The  woman  whom  thou  gavest  to  be  with  me,  she  gave 
of  the  tree,  and  I  did  eat."  This  is  no  acknowledgment 
of  the  bewitching  influence  of  womankind  over  mankind. 
Such  an  acknowledgment  is  present  in  pagan  faiths, 
but  not  in  the  revealed  faiths  of  Scripture.  Much  less  is 
it  an  attempt  to  shift  responsibility.  The  degradation 
of  man  through  ages  of  sinful  generations  may  have  made 
a  coward  of  man,  but  it  was  not  so  at  the  beginning. 
The  answer  has  in  it  nobility,  and  reflects  credit  on  man ; 
else  it  contains  elements  unworthy  of  the  dignity  of  the 
record,  and  is  contrary  to  the  earnest  nature  of  revealed 
truth.  Such  claims  at  least  must  be  made,  and  yielded 
only  when  found  impossible  of  establishment,  by  those 
who  hold  to  the  revealed  character  of  Scripture  truth. 

The  response  of  Adam  has  in  it  two  elements,  which 
had  weight  with  Jehovah.    The  first  is  expressed  in  the 


124  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

words :  "  The  woman  whom  thou  gavest  to  be  with  mo." 
She  was  given  to  be  a  "  helpmeet  for  him."  She  was 
given  by  Jehovah  God.  The  divine  purpose  was  that 
the  two  should  live  together.  Jehovah  God  planned  that 
they  be  together  in  obedience.  Man  chose  that  they 
should  be  together  in  disobedience,  after  the  woman  had 
disobeyed.  The  magnanimity  of  the  choice  of  Adam 
must  have  commended  itself  to  Jehovah  God.  The 
choice  ennobles  man.  It  is  worthy  of  him.  Unless  we 
keep  constantly  in  mind  the  revealed  facts  concerning 
the  creation  of  woman,  it  is  difficult  to  find  such  feat- 
ures of  this  narrative  as  will  command  the  continued 
respect  of  the  reasoning  mind.  The  basis  of  that  won- 
derful movement  of  the  Middle  Ages  is  a  sentiment  like 
that  which  led  Adam  to  eat  of  the  tree.  Knighthood 
had  its  very  essence  foreshadowed  in  this  choice  of  Adam. 
The  second  element  is  the  confession :  "  I  did  eat."  There 
is  no  hesitation.  It  is  manfully  made  and  without  ex- 
cuse. It  awaits  the  threatened  punishment  without  ask- 
ing mercy.  There  is  no  presumption.  There  is  no  vaunt- 
ing of  man  against  God.  Simple  confession,  confession 
of  disobedience,  and  the  only  motive  absigned  which 
could  have  had  any  weight  with  God.  If  one  may  dare 
to  speak  of  the  emotions  of  God  at  this  time,  basing  his 
remark  on  the  likeness  of  man  to  his  God,  we  may  say 
that  this  knightly  choice  of  Adam  commended  him  to 
his  Maker.  But  confession  is  ever  the  first  step  in  recon- 
ciliation and  in  the  obtainment  of  mercy.  The  judg 
ment  upon  the  man  is  withheld  until  all  the  facts  have 


THE  FAITH  OP  THE  ANTEDILUVIAN  PATRIARCHS.      125 

boon  clear  to  the  knowledge  of  the  human  pair.  The 
woman  is  next  addressed. 

A  similarly  searching  question  is  made  to  the  woman 
by  Jehovah  God.  It  is :  "  What  is  this  that  thou  hast 
done  ?  "  The  answer  of  the  woman  is  as  direct  and  sim- 
ple as  that  of  the  man.  "  The  serpent  beguiled  me,  and 
I  did  cat?"  This  response  also  has  two  elements  in  it. 
The  first  becomes  known  in  the  words:  "The  serpent 
deceived  me."  There  is  tremendous  meaning  in  these 
three  words.  A  woman  utters  them.  Eeflection  teaches 
us  that  the  tragic  sorrow  of  life,  which  has  given  basis 
for  most  of  the  poems  and  dramas  where  women  are 
heroines,  is  summed  up  in  the  one  word  "deceived." 
Moreover  the  cry  of  the  fallen  women  of  the  world,  as  it 
in  agony  goes  up  to  the  Father,  may  be  gathered  in  one 
word,  "  deceived."  The  first  woman,  as  she  faces  Jeho- 
vah God,  suflforing  from  the  torturing  consciousness  that 
she  had  been  deceived,  made  as  her  only  plea  in  her  reply 
to  the  question  of  her  Creator :  "  The  serpent  deceived 
me."  If  the  manly  choice  of  Adam  commended  him  to 
Jehovah,  the  heart-misery  of  the  woman,  when  she  said 
"  deceived  me,"  kindled  that  love  of  Jehovah  which  finds 
its  expression  in  the  revelation  of  the  Old  Testament  and 
has  its  culmination  in  the  New  Testament.  Likewise 
there  is  found  in  this  answer  of  the  woman,  as  its  second 
clement,  confession.  It  is  uttered  in  the  words  :  "And  I 
did  eat."  The  woman  too  took  the  first  step  toward 
reconciliation.     She  made  a  frank  confession. 

These  truths  are  the  great  gift  of  the  narrative  up  to  this 


126  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

point.  The  most  skeptical  mind  cannot  deny  them.  But 
when  we  place  emphasis  upon  the  form  in  which  they 
are  conveyed  to  us,  and  bury  in  our  defense  of  the  shell 
the  meat  within,  we  are  and  worthily  become  a  laughing- 
stock to  keen-minded  men.  Our  little  desire  to  hold 
some  mystic  meaning  in  the  form  of  the  narrative  makes 
us  little  before  all  who  investigate  to  find  truth  and  are 
willing  to  accept  any  form  in  which  it  may  be  conveyed. 
Jehovah  God,  as  true  and  just,  declares  in  these  pas- 
sages his  judgments  upon  the  serpent,  the  woman,  and 
the  man. 

And  the  Jehovah  God  said  unto  the  serpent : 
"  Because  thou  hast  done  this, 
Thou  art  cursed.    ... 

And  I  will  put  enmity  between  thee  and  the  woman, 
And  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed. 
It  shall  bruise  thy  head, 
And  thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel." 
Unto  the  woman  he  said : 

"  I  will  greatly  multiply  thy  sorrow  in  conception.    .    .    ." 
And  unto  Adam  he  said : 

"  Because  thou  hast  hearkened  unto  the  voice  of  thy  wife, 
And  hast  eaten  of  the  tree,  of  which  I  commanded  thee,  say- 
ing: 

'Thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it,' 

Cursed  is  the  ground  on  account  of  thee. 

In  sorrow  thou  shalt  eat  of  it  all  the  days  of  thy  life." 

Already  the  relation  of  the  serpent  to  Jehovah  God 
had  been  declared.  Now  his  future  relations  to  the  hu- 
man pair  is  made  manifest.    His  conduct  in  both  instances 


THE  FAITH  OF  THE  ANTEDILUVIAN  PATRIARCHS.      127 

determined  his  position.    The  narrative  here  simply  re- 
veals his  conduct  as  it  has  reference  to  man. 

The  serpent  was  ovil,  was  wicked,  was  malignant  in 
seeking  the  overthrow  of  man.  His  conduct  had  in  it  not 
one  mitigating  circumstance.  Jehovah  God  passes  judg- 
ment on  so  heartless,  pitiless  a  deceiver  in  the  words 
"  Cursed  art  thou."  Not  an  upright,  but  a  crawling  per- 
sonality shall  be  his  portion.  Ilis  realm  of  power  shall 
be  not  in  the  spirit  domain,  but  in  the  flesh.  His  nourish- 
ment shall  be  dust.  The  reciprocal  relation  between  man 
and  the  serpent  is  outlined  in  words  which  have  been 
characterized  as  the  Protoevangelium.    They  are  : 

And  I  will  put  enmity  between  thee  and  the  woman  : 
And  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed : 
It  shall  bruise  thy  head, 
And  thou  shalt  bruise  its  heel. 

Two  words  in  this  First  Gospel  demand  careful  study. 
They  are  "  enmity  "  and  "  bruise."  The  Hebrew  word 
for  "enmity"  is  iEBAH  (Hl^J^).  It  is  used  but  five 
times  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures :  the  present  passage 
and  two  in  Numbers  (xxxv.  22,  xxxv.  21),  and  also  two 
in  Ezekiel  (xxv.  15,  xxxv.  5).  The  passages  in  Num- 
bers furnish  us  with  the  dominant  element  in  the  word. 
The  discrimination  in  each  passage  is  made  between  the 
man  who  kills  another  by  accident  and  the  man  who 
commits  murder.  The  penalty  of  manslaughter  inspired 
by  "  enmity "  (ilH^NI)  is  death.  Hence  "  enmity "  be- 
tween parties  was  recognized  as  culminating  in  the  death 
of  one  of  them. 


128  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

Ezekiel  furnishes  two  passages.  The  first  is :  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord  God :  Because  the  Philistines  have  dealt 
by  revenge  and  have  taken  vengeance  with  a  de8j)iteful 
heart  to  destroy  for  the  old  hatred  [H^^N,  enmity]."  The 
second  is:  "Because  thou  hast  had  a  perpetual  hatred 
[n^*NI)  enmity]  and  hast  shed  the  blood  of  the  children 
of  Israel."  Here  too,  in  Ezekiel,  the  essence  of  the  word 
is  found  in  an  hostility,  culminating  in  death.  The  en- 
mity, then,  which  Jehovah  God  places  between  the  woman 
and  the  serpent  is  a  death-feud. 

The  Hebrew  word  translated  "bruise"  is  also  a  rare 
word.  It  is  used  in  but  two  other  passages  (Job  ix.  17 
and  Ps.  cxxxix.  11).    The  passage  in  Job  reads  as  follows : 

For  He  breaketh  [t]^^*,  bruise]  me  with  a  tempest, 

And  multiplieth  my  wounds  without  a  cause. 

The  passage  in  the  Psalms  is : 

And  should  I  say ; 

"  Surely  darkness  shall  overwhelm  [YASHUPH,  bruise]  me, 

Yet  the  night  shall  be  light  about  me." 

It  is  most  probable  that  the  passage  in  Job  should 
have  this  Hebrew  word  translated  not  as  "break,"  but 
as  "  overwhelm."  Then  the  passage  in  Genesis  would  be 
the  only  one  where  this  word  has  the  signification  of 
"  bruising."  The  context  alone  must  give  the  meaning, 
or  at  least  be  accordant  with  the  definition  assigned. 
The  word  "  bruise,"  or  "  wound  "  has  been  generally  ac- 
cepted as  the  correct  equivalent.  This  meaning  would 
also  suit  equally  the  passage  in  Job. 

We  may  now  better  apprehend  the  import  of  this  first 


THE  FAITH  OF  THE  ANTEDILUVIAN  PATRIARCHS.      129 

gospel.  Jehovah  God  places  between  the  serpent  and 
man  "enmity,"  a  deadly  feud.  The  advantage  is  with 
man.  He  shall  have  power  to  bruise  the  sei-pcnt's  head ; 
he  shall  wound  a  mortal  part ;  he  shall  deal  death-blows. 
But,  on  the  contrary,  the  serpent  shall  bruise  the  heel  of 
man ;  his  wounds  shall  produce  laming.  Such  is  the 
word  of  Jehovah  God  to  the  serpent.  The  law  of  limit- 
ation is  placed  upon  the  serpent.  The  decree  of  death 
also  is  passed  upon  him.  Such  is  the  just  judgment  of 
Jehovah  God  upon  the  serpent.  This  deceiving  person, 
who  falsely  told  man,  saying,  "Thou  shalt  not  die,"  is 
told  that  he  must  die,  and  that  too  by  the  hand  of  man 
whom  he  had  deceived.  Such  is  the  paradox  of  Jehovah 
God.  Powerlessness,  inability  to  execute  a  lie  upon  man, 
is  the  final  doom  of  the  serpent.  So  much,  at  least,  is 
here  meant  by  the  assertion  that  the  serpent  must  die. 
Ho  has  his  doom  involved  in  the  seed  of  the  woman. 
This  is  a  fundamental  faith  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 
Its  expression  in  words  for  the  first  time  in  these  Script- 
ures constitutes  the  passage  which  utters  to  us  the  first 
gospel  promise.  There  is  in  these  words  hope  for  de- 
ceived mankind.  Their  fulfillment  will  be  the  realization 
of  the  Messiah's  dominion  over  mankind, 

Jehovah  God  turns  from  this  dooming  of  the  serpent 
to  the  woman  and  the  man.  She  has  confessed,  she  has 
urged  the  only  mitigating  circumstance.  Her  confession 
was:  "I  did  eat."  The  mitigating  circumstance  was: 
"  The  serpent  deceived  me."  The  man  also  confessed  and 
at  the  same  time  urged  the  motive  which  led  him  to  dis- 
9 


130  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

obey — a  motive  itself  God-given.  His  confession  was: 
"I  did  eat."  The  motive  was  :  "The  woman  that  thou 
gavest  to  be  with  me."  The  man  chose  to  eat,  because 
he  wished  to  share  such  penalty  as  might  be  placed  upon 
the  woman  whom  Jehovah  God  gave  to  be  with  him. 
Loving  pity  for  the  deceived  woman  tempered  the  pen- 
alty imposed  on  the  woman,  loving  admiration  mollified 
the  penalty  meted  out  to  man.  Confession  from  each 
secured  them  favor.  Still  ever  disobedience  to  Jehovah 
God  entails  punishment  that  cannot  be  escaped  from. 

This  punishment  is  summed  up  for  both  in  the  word 
"  sorrow."  Yes,  sorrow  shall  be  the  lot  of  the  woman 
and  the  man.  Sorrow  shall  bo  the  part  of  the  woman  in 
her  home — life,  sorrow  shall  be  the  part  of  the  man  in 
his  work — world.  The  words  of  Jehovah  God  to  the 
woman  are  :  "  I  will  surely  multiply  thy  sorrow  in  con- 
ception." His  words  to  the  man  are :  "  In  sorrow  shalt 
thou  eat  of  the  ground  all  the  days  of  thy  life." 

These  faiths  and  these  punishments,  and  this  j)romise 
are  insepai^able  with  the  Garden  of  Eden  in  the  mind  of 
the  Hebrews.  Sorrow  could  not  have  place  in  Eden. 
Hence  the  man  and  woman,  who  had  sorrow,  must  be 
expelled  from  the  gai'den.  However,  they  do  not  go 
forth  hopeless.  They  are  conscious  that  a  deadly  feud 
exists  between  them  and  the  personal  power  named 
The  Serpent,  and  they  know  that  in  the  warfare  the  ad- 
vantage would  be  with  them.  All  subsequent  revelation 
is  simply  the  helps  given  by  Jehovah  God  to  enable  man 
to  be  ever  superior  to  the  serpent,  when  the  battle  should 
become  shifted  to  new  fields^ 


RELIGIOUS  SKEPTICISM. 


"  If  you  have  any  faith,  give  me  a  share  in  it.  If  you  have  only 
doubts,  keep  them  to  yourself;  I  have  enough  of  my  own," — Ooethe 
to  Eckerman. 

"  If  any  man  wills  to  do  His  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine, 
whether  it  be  of  God." — Jegus  of  Nazareth. 

Can  there  be  such  a  thing  as  honest  skepticism  ?  May 
a  period  of  religious  doubt  characterize  an  honest  tioith- 
seeker  among  unbelievers,  or  a  sincere  and  loyal  disciple 
of  Christ  ?  I  once  heard  an  eminent  divine  say  from  the 
pulpit  that  "any  man  that  said  he  ever  had  an  honest 
doubt  about  the  existence  of  God  or  the  truth  of  the 
Bible  was  telling  a  falsehood,  and  he  knew  he  was  telling 
a  falsehood  when  he  made  such  a  statement."  I  believe 
that  the  statement  made  by  the  preacher  was  not  only 
false,  but  calculated  to  do  a  great  deal  of  harm,  and  to 
repel  and  drive  away  from  all  sympathy  with  the  Church 
many  whom  it  is  the  privilege  and  duty  of  the  minis- 
ter of  Christ  to  lead  out  of  their  spiritual  darkness  into 
light.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  dishonest  skepticism  in 
the  world,  and  especially  among  young  men,  but  there 
may  be,  and  is  unquestionably,  skepticism  that  is  honest. 
It  is  the  purpose  of  this  paper  to  discuss  the  subject  in 
such  a  way  as  to  show  what  is  honest,  and  what  is  dis- 
honest, doubt  in  matters  of  religion,  and  to  con\nct  the 
dishonest  doubter  of  his  sin  and  lead  the  honest  doubter 


132  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

out  of  the  state  which  he  deplores  into  the  full  assurance 
of  faith. 

First  let  us  notice  the  skepticism  of  the  unregenerate 
world.  Among  unregenerate  men  there  are  both  believ- 
ers and  unbelievers.  By  the  term  "unregenerate  un- 
believers "  we  would  designate  those  who  have  a  positive 
disbelief  in  the  existence  of  God  or  the  truth  of  the  Bi- 
ble. Such  are  materialists,  atheists,  infidels,  and  those 
who  under  the  popular  epithet  of  agnostics  conceal  a 
positive  and  absolute  no-faith  in  the  Christian  revelation. 
But  there  are  also  those  whom  we  may  properly  desig- 
nate as  unregenerate  believers — not  believers  in  the 
sense  that  they  have  saving  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  but  simply  in  the  sense  that  they  believe  in  the 
existence  of  God  and  in  the  truth  of  the  Christian 
Scriptures.  They  are  nominally  Christians.  The  great 
majority  of  unconverted  people  in  Christian  lands  come 
under  this  class.  This  faith  does  not  imply  a  saved  re- 
lation; indeed,  "the  devils  believe  and  tremble."  It  is 
simply  the  faith  of  assent;  it  is  with  tbe  intellect,  spec- 
ulative, dead.  That  faith  which  is  the  condition  of  jus- 
tification and  regeneration  is  personal  trust — not  assent, 
but  consent.  It  is  with  the  heart,  not  intellect,  that  man 
believeth  unto  righteousness  and  salvation. 

Now  between  the  two  classes  hero  designated  as  un- 
regenerate believers  and  unbelievers,  there  comes  a  third 
class,  the  skeptics — those  who,  on  the  one  hand,  do  not 
deny  the  existence  of  a  Divine  Being  and  the  truth  of 
the  Scriptures,  but  who,  on  the  other  hand,  are  not  fully 


RELIGIOUS  SKEPTICISM.  133 

persuaded  and  convinced  of  the  truth  of  these  things. 
They  stand  in  doubt.     Skeptoinai — I  doubt. 

The  man  who  professes  to  be  a  skeptic,  who  boasts  of 
his  skepticism  and  prides  himself  in  it,  is  rarely,  if  ever, 
an  honest  skeptic.  Honest  skepticism  is  humble  and 
modest;  it  seeks  to  hide  itself,  save  as  it  seeks  light. 
There  are  a  great  many  young  men  in  our  larger  towns 
and  cities,  and  in  the  atmosphere  of  our  colleges  and 
universities,  who  are  professed  skeptics;  and  some  even 
of  older  years  pride  themselves  in  being  skeptics,  as  if, 
through  superior  intellects,  they  had  discovered  some- 
thing which  the  less  intellectual  and  unenlightened  did 
not  know — viz.,  that  the  Christian  religion  after  all  may 
not  be  true.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  their  so-called  skep- 
ticism is  simply  a  cloak  to  hide  their  religious  dishonesty 
and  sin.  It  is  simply  one  of  the  modes  which  the  carnal 
nature  of  unregenerale  man  employs  to  defend  itself 
against  the  demands  of  God's  righteous*  law.  A  very 
convenient,  non-committal  position  is  that  of  the  pro- 
fessed skeptic.  Charge  him  with  being  an  atheist  or 
infidel,  and  he  indignantly  repels  the  odium  of  such  a 
charge  by  saying  that  he  is  not.  On  the  other  hand, 
urge  him  to  become  a  Christian,  to  forsake  his  "Sins  and 
lead  the  self-denying  life  of  a  disciple  of  the  Master,  and 
he  retorts  at  once  that  he  is  a  skeptic,  that  he  has  his 
doubts  about  the  truth  of  Christianity,  and  so  denies  his 
moral  obligation,  as  long  as  that  state  of  mind  continues, 
to  forsake  his  sins  and  become  a  Christian.  By  encour- 
aging his  own  skepticism,  and  pereuading  himself  that 


134  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

the  Christian  religion  may  not  be  true,  he  manages  to 
ease  his  conscience  while  he  continues  in  the  indulgence 
of  those  sins  which  the  law  of  God  forbids  and  which 
his  carnal  nature  craves.  Such  professed  skepticism  is 
the  essence  of  dishonesty,  and  is  simply  one  of  the  manj^ 
ways  in  which  the  unregencrate  nature  of  man  seeks  to 
defend  itself  against  the  exacting  moral  law  of  God.  It 
is  sin,  and  only  that  Spirit  who  convinces  of  all  sin  can 
break  its  dominion. 

But  there  is  such  a  thing  as  honest  doubt,  and  it  has 
this  comforting  assurance  from  the  Master :  "  If  any  man 
wills  to  do  God's  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine, 
whether  it  be  of  God  or  whether  it  be  of  man."  Not 
"  will  do  His  will,"  as  the  old  Ycrsion  has  it,  and  which  I 
have  often  thought  was  a  hard  condition  for  the  sinner 
to  fulfill — viz.,  to  have  to  do  a  thing  and  not  know  that 
it  is  of  God  until  after  it  is  done.  But  rather,  "  if  any 
man  wills,  intends,  desires,  purposes,  is  honestly  striving 
to  do  God's  will,"  he  shall  not  be  left  in  doubt,  but  will 
be  made  to  know  of  the  doctrine,  that  it  is  from  God 
and  not  from  man. 

If  religious  skepticism  claims  to  be  honest  in  doubting 
the  truth  of  Christian  revelation,  in  whole  or  in  part,  we 
may  determine  the  justness  of  this  claim  by  applying 
certain  infallible  tests.  In  the  first  place,  skepticism,  if 
honest,  will  make  careful  and  earnest  investigation  of 
the  evidence  in  favor  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  before 
it  asserts  itself.  Such  have  been  the  number  and  char- 
acter of  those  who  have  believed  in  it,  such  the  ante- 


RELIGIOUS  SKEPTICISM.  -  135 

cedent  preponderance  of  evidence  in  favor  of  its  truth, 
and  so  momentous  are  the  issues  involved,  that  nothing 
less  than  this  is  reasonable.  The  man  who  says  he  has 
doubts  about  the  truth  of  Christianity,  but  who  has  not 
carefully  read  and  studied  the  Bible  and  made  a  reason- 
able examination  of  the  leading  evidences  in  favor  of 
its  truth,  is  not  worthy  to  be  listened  to  for  a  moment, 
much  less  to  be  argued  with.  Such  superficial  skepti- 
cism has  dishonesty  on  its  very  face,  and  is  one  of  the 
marks  of  a  carnal  nature  that  is  enmity  against  God. 
Apply  this  righteous  test,  and  how  much  of  the  so-called 
honest  skepticism  of  the  day  will  be  scattered  to  the 
wind  or  convicted  of  its  dishonesty.  How  absurd  the 
idea,  what  conceit  of  ignorance,  that  a  man  should  call 
in  question  the  truth  of  the  Bible — that  book  which  the 
wisest  and  best  men  and  women  of  all  ages  have  believed 
in  and  followed — when  he  has  never  once  carefully  and 
honestly  read  it  in  search  of  the  truth !  The  man  that 
has  read  and  studied  the  Bible,  and  honestly  investigated 
the  evidences  of  Christianity,  and  still  has  doubts,  is  to 
be  listened  to  and  reasoned  with.  He  is  entitled  to  be 
heard.  But  not  so  the  skeptic  who  captiously  calls  in 
question  the  truth  of  the  Bible  when  he  has  nothing  but 
the  most  superficial  knowledge  of  what  it  is.  Such 
skepticism  is  sin,  and  is  to  be  dealt  with  as  all  other  sin 
is.  How  many  such  captious  skeptics,  when  powerfully 
convicted  of  sin  and  soundly  converted,  have  scattered 
their  doubts  to  the  wind  and  never  once  cared  to  have 
their  questions  answered.     Men  may  have  read  the  Bi- 


136  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

ble  through  for  the  purpose  of  criticising  it,  and  studied 
the  evidences  of  Christianity  for  the  purpose  of  refuting 
them,  and,  characterized  by  such  a  spirit,  may  have 
ended  such  reading  and  study  as  full  of  doubt  as  when 
they  began.  But  it  is  a  question  whether  a  man  ever 
yet  read  the  Bible  through  carefully,  conscientiously, 
and  prayerfully,  honestly  seeking  the  light,  and  inves- 
tigated the  evidences  of  Christianity  in  the  same  spirit, 
but  that  he  was  richly  rewarded  by  being  relieved  of  all 
his  doubts.  He  it  is  for  whose  encouragement  the  Mas- 
ter said:  "If  any  man  wills  to  do  His  will,  he  shall 
know  of  the  doctrine  whether  it  be  of  God."  Honest 
skepticism  may  characterize  the  investigator  and  truth- 
seeker,  but  not  the  man  that  is  at  rest.  Long  continu- 
ance in  a  state  of  skepticism,  without  any  earnest  effort 
to  get  out  of  it,  proves  it  to  be  dishonest. 

But  again,  if  skepticism  be  honest  and  intelligent,  it 
ought  to  be  able  to  tell  just  what  is  doubted  and  lohy  it  is 
doubted.  Ealph  "Waldo  Emerson  said  he  could  tell  what 
he  believed  and  wliat  he  doubted ;  but  if  any  one  asked 
him  why  he  believed  or  why  he  doubted,  he  was  quite 
helpless  to  reply.  And  some  critic  has  thoughtfully  ob- 
served that  if  this  great  man  of  letters  had  trained  him- 
self through  life  to  give  the  whys  and  wherefores  of  his 
beliefs  and  doubts,  his  faith  would  not  have  diverged  so 
largely  from  that  of  evangelical  Christianity.  But  how 
few  professed  skeptics,  claiming  to  be  honest  and  intelli- 
gent, can  give  either  the  what  or  the  why  of  their 
doubts!     "Skeptical  about  what?"  you  ask  of  him. 


RELIGIOUS  SKEPTICISM.  137 

"  Tell  me  what  you  doubt  in  religion  and  why  you  doubt, 
and  it  may  be  I  can  help  you."  "01  am  just  skeptical," 
he  replies,  "skeptical  generally" — and  that  is  all  you 
can  get  out  of  him.  Miserable  cant!  What  stuff  is 
sometimes  palmed  off  by  young  men  under  the  profes- 
sion of  honest  skepticism ! 

A  skeptic  was  once  complaining  that  the  Bible  stated 
things  too  vaguely  and  obscurely  for  a  book  that  de- 
manded implicit  faith.  "  For  instance,"  he  said,  "  if  the 
Bible  meant  to  teach  that  Christ  was  divine,  why  did  it 
not  declare  this  truth  in  plain  and  unmistakable  terms, 
such  as  men  could  not  misunderstand  ?  "  "  How  would 
you  have  had  it  state  this  truth  in  order  to  satisfy  you  ?  " 
asked  a  Christian  man.  "  I  would  have  had  it  say  that 
'Jesus  Christ  is  the  true  God,'  and  then  there  could  be 
no  mistake  about  it."  "  I  am  happy  to  be  able  to  tell 
you,"  replied  his  friend,  "  that  your  doubts  arc  relieved, 
for  the  Bible  does  say  this  very  thing."  And  turning  to 
the  First  Epistle  of  John,  he  read,  Jesus  Christ  "  is  the 
true  God  and  eternal  life."  But,  strange  to  say,  the 
skeptic  manifested  no  pleasure  at  finding  the  Bible  had 
expressed  the  doctrine  in  his  own  chosen  terms.  He 
rather  showed  confusion  and  regret  that  it  was  so.  And 
ho  was  no  more  convinced  than  he  was  before.  Yet  ho 
called  himself  an  honest  skeptic,  and  seemed  to  hold  God 
responsible  for  his  doubts  in  that  he  had  not  stated 
things  plainly  enough. 

How  profound  and  far-reaching  was  the  truth  the 
Master  uttered  when  he  said  :  "  If  they  believe  not  Mo- 


138  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

ses  and  the  prophets,  neither  would  they  believe,  though 
one  rose  from  the  dead."  If  they  believe  not  the  ev- 
idence they  have,  neither  would  they  believe  though  it 
had  been  just  what  they  might  demand — even  to  the 
raising  of  one  from  the  dead.  They  imagine  that  they 
would  believe  if  the  evidence  were  different,  but  it  is  not 
so.  He  who  made  the  human  mind,  and  made  the  Chris- 
tian religion  for  it,  has  said  that  if  men  believe  not  Mo- 
ses and  the  prophets — that  is,  if  they  believe  not  with 
the  evidence  they  now  have — neither  would  they  believe 
though  one  rose  from  the  dead.  And  in  proof  of  this 
truth,  did  not  One  rise  from  the  dead  ?  and  did  all  men 
after  that  become  believers  ?  The  trouble  is  not  that  the 
external  conditions  and  evidences  of  the  faith  are  not 
fully  provided,  but  rather  that  the  carnal  mind  is  en- 
mity against  God.  "  With  the  heart  man  believeth  unto 
righteousness." 

"How  long  dost  thou  make  us  to  doubt?"  said  the 
Jews  to  Christ,  "  If  thou  be  the  Christ,  tell  us  plainly." 
The  skeptic  tries  to  make  it  appear,  or  at  least  to  per- 
suade himself,  that  God,  or  the  Bible,  or  the  Christian 
religion,  is  responsible  for  his  doubt.  "  How  long  dost 
thou  make  us  to  doubt  ?  " — thou  art  responsible  for  our 
doubt.  The  inference  is  that  if  Christ  would  tell  them 
plainly,  they  would  believe  on  him,  and  become  his 
obedient  disciples.  Let  us  see  if  such  was  the  case. 
"  Jesus  answered  them,  I  have  told  you  already,  and  ye 
believed  not :  the  works  that  I  do  in  my  Father's  name, 
they  bear  witness  of  me."     But  still,  as  ye  call  for  a 


RELIGIOUS  SKEPTICISM.  139 

plain  answer  concerning  my  Messiahship  and  divinitj-,  1 
will  give  it :  "  I  and  ray  Father  are  one."  Can  any  thing 
plainer  than  that  be  spoken?  But  did  they  believe? 
No:  "Then  they  took  up  stones  to  stone  him."  This 
reveals  the  animus  and  spirit  of  their  skepticism.  This 
proves  the  truth  of  what  Jesus  had  said  unto  them :  "  Yo 
believe  not  because  ye  are  not  of  my  sheep.  My  sheep 
hear  my  voice  and  follow  me."  The  real  cause  of  skep- 
ticism in  most  instances  is  not  that  the  intellectual  con- 
ditions of  faith  are  wanting,  but  the  heart  conditions  in 
the  unbeliever  are  wanting.  "  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity 
against  God." 

In  a  certain  literary  circle,  where  skepticism  was  quite 
popular,  some  slighting  allusions  were  made,  on  a  certain 
important  occasion,  to  the  Christian  religion.  So  un- 
called for  were  these  allusions  and  so  captious  the  spirit 
that  prompted  them,  that  one  who  was  present — him- 
self a  literary  man  and  no  professed  defender  of  the 
faith* — could  not  resist  the  temptation  to  administer 
the  following  just  rebuke :  "  It  will  be  found  that  any 
form  of  Christianity,  whatever  its  defects  and  imperfec- 
tions, which  has  an  open  Bible  and  proclaims  a  crucified 
and  risen  Christ,  is  infinitely  preferable  to  any  form  of 
polite  and  polished  skepticism  which  gathers  as  its  vota- 
ries the  degenerate  sons  of  heroic  ancestors,  who,  having 
been  trained  in  a  society  and  educated  in  schools,  the 
foundations  of  which  were  laid  by  men  of  faith  and 
piety,  now  turn  and  kick  down  the  ladder  by  which 
*  James  Russell  Lowell. 


140  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

they  have  climbed  up,  and  persuade  men  to  live  without 
God,  and  leave  them  to  die  without  hope.  The  worst 
kind  of  religion  is  no  religion  at  all ;  and  these  men, 
living  in  ease  and  luxury,  indulging  themselves  in  the 
amusement  of  going  without  religion,  may  be  thankful 
that  they  live  in  lands  where  the  gospel  they  neglect 
has  tamed  the  beastliness  and  ferocity  of  the  men  who, 
but  for  Christianity,  might  long  ago  have  eaten  their 
carcasses  like  the  South  Sea  Islanders,  or  cut  off  their 
heads  and  tanned  their  hides  like  the  monsters  of  the 
French  Revolution.  When  the  microscopic  search  of 
skepticism,  which  had  hunted  the  heavens  and  sounded 
the  seas  to  disprove  the  existence  of  a  Creator,  has 
turned  its  attention  to  human  society,  and  has  found  a 
place  on  this  planet  ten  miles  square  whore  a  decent 
man  can  live  in  decency,  comfort,  and  security,  support- 
ing and  educating  his  children  unspoiled  and  unpolluted  ; 
a  place  where  age  is  reverenced,  infancy  respected,  wom- 
anhood honored,  and  human  life  held  in  due  regard — 
when  skeptics  can  find  such  a  place  ton  miles  square  on 
this  globe,  where  the  gospel  of  Christ  has  not  gone  and 
cleared  the  way  and  laid  the  foundations  and  made  de- 
cenc}'^  and  security  possible,  it  will  then  be  in  order  for 
the  skeptical  literati  to  move  thither  and  there  ventilate 
their  views.  But  so  long  as  these  very  men  are  depend- 
ent upon  the  religion  which  they  discard  for  every  priv- 
ilege they  enjoy,  they  may  well  hesitate  a  little  before 
they  seek  to  rob  the  Christian  of  his  hope  and  humanity 
of  its  faith  in  the  Saviour  who  alone  has  given  to  man 


KELiaiOUS  SKEPTICISM.  141 

that  hopo  of  life  eternal  which  makes  life  tolerable  and 
society  possible,  and  robs  death  of  its  terroi"8  and  the 
grave  of  its  gloom." 

We  come  next  to  consider  the  skepticism  of  regener- 
ate believera.  May  a  true  believer  ever  have  any  doubts 
in  matters  of  religion  ?  He  may,  but  it  is  always  ac- 
companied by  the  prayer,  "Lord,  I  believe,  help  thou 
mine  unbelief."  An  unbeliever's  skepticism  may  bo 
honest  or  dishonest,  but  that  of  a  believer  must  always 
be  honest.  Does  the  fact  that  a  professing  Christian 
finds  himself  sometimes  troubled  with  doubts  concerning 
one  or  many  points  of  the  faith  prove  that  he  is  not  a 
regenerate  child  of  God  ?  Not  necessarily.  But  the 
religious  doubts  compatible  with  a  state  of  saving  faith 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  a  subject  that  requires  clear 
analysis  and  cautious  treatment,  lest  it  be  made  a  stum- 
bling-block to  believers  rather  than  what  it  should  be, 
and  is  here  designed  to  be — viz.,  a  means  of  guiding  all 
such  as  may  be  troubled  with  doubts  out  of  their  un- 
happy state  into  the  clear  light  of  a  satisfying  faith. 
The  question  is,  whether  a  true  believer  may  in  any  de- 
gree, or  in  any  sense,  or  at  any  period  have  doubts  con- 
cerning any  of  the  great  cardinal  doctrines  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith.  We  arc  not,  of  course,  discussing  whether  a 
denial  of  any  part  of  the  faith  is  compatible  with  a  re- 
generate state.  As  to  how  much  of  the  truth  of  Chris- 
tian revelation  a  man  may  deny,  and  still  have  a  vital 
or  saving  faith  in  Christ,  is  a  question  with  which  we 
have  not  here  to  do.    To  doubt  is  not  to  deny.     Doubt, 


142  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

as  we  shall  see,  may  perform  an  important  office  even  in 
the  evidences  of  Christianity. 

"We  wish  to  notice  three  phases  of  skepticism :  (1) 
that  which  is  the  outgrowth  of  temperament  or  disposi- 
tion ;  (2)  that  which  is  the  outgrowth  of  circumstances ; 
and  (3)  that  which  is  incident  to  the  transition  period 
between  youth  and  manhood. 

Of  the  first  of  these,  the  skepticism  of  the  Apostle  Thom- 
as is  a  case  in  point.  It  was  due  to  his  peculiar  mental 
temperament.  Some  people  are  by  nature  credulous ;  they 
believe  readily,  and  require  little  or  no  evidence.  Others 
are  by  nature  skeptical ;  they  are  slow  to  accept  state- 
ments that  demand  faith,  and  they  require  much  and 
strong  evidence  before  they  will  believe.  To  the  former 
class  Peter  belonged ;  his  impulsive  nature  was  quick  to 
believe  and  quick  to  act.  Thomas  belonged  to  the  latter 
class.  He  was  slow  to  believe,  and  he  demanded  strong 
and  full  evidence  before  he  would  believe.  But  our 
Lord,  though  he  somewhat  chided,  yet  had  respect  unto 
his  skepticism.  It  was  honest.  The  faith  of  the  latter 
class  when  once  secured  is  stronger  and  more  deeply 
felt  than  that  of  the  former.  None  of  the  holy  apostles 
was  more  faithful  and  firm  in  his  loyalty  to  Christ  than 
Thomas.  He  was  utterly  incapable  of  doing  what  Judas 
or  Peter  did.  While  no  other  apostle  doubted  as  Thomas 
did,  yet  none,  when  convinced,  believed  as  he  did.  His 
confession  of  faith  and  his  testimony  to  the  divinity  of 
Christ  after  the  resurrection  were  clearer  and  stronger 
than  came  fi-om  any  other  apostle :  "  My  Lord  and  my 


BELiaiOUS  SKEPTIOISH.  143 

God ! "  I  have  always  been  glad  that  the  skeptic  Thomas 
was  among  the  apostles.  His  belief  is  the  best  evidence 
of  all.  I  know  that  if  he,  with  his  cautious  and  skep- 
tical temperament,  was  convinced,  there  was  certainly 
no  mistake  about  the  resuri'cction.  Peter  might  have 
been  deceived;  Thomas  never.  Saint  Augustine  has 
well  said  that  "Thomas  doubted  that  we  might  not 
doubt." 

Sometimes  never  to  doubt  means  never  to  believe. 
Some  never  doubt  any  thing  much  and  never  believe 
any  thing  much.  Intelligent  doubt  often  leads  to  the 
careful  examination  of  evidence,  which,  when  found  con- 
clusive, leads  to  the  strongest  faith.  To  believe  without 
evidence  is  credulity,  not  faith.  Faith  is  belief  upon 
evidence.  To  avow  belief  too  readily  is  the  surest  proof 
that  there  is  no  real  faith.  The  Scotch  told  King  Charles 
that  if  he  would  accept  and  subscribe  to  their  creed,  they 
would  support  his  royal  cause  against  his  political  en- 
emies. They  brought  the  document  to  him  to  read  and 
sign,  if  he  found  that  he  could  do  so  conscientiously 
and  sincerely.  "  O  it  is  not  necessaiy  to  read  it,"  said 
ho  J  "  give  me  the  pen ;  I  believe  it."  But  the  Scotch 
were  quick  to  see  that  such  ready  belief  and  acceptance 
as  that,  without  any  examination  whatever,  was  really 
no  belief  at  all ;  and  so  they  put  no  faith  in  his  subsci-ip- 
tion  or  in  his  fidelity. 

Hence  the  tendency  of  the  human  mind  to  doubt  is, 
within  reasonable  limits,  a  safeguard  against  credulity 
and  superstition.    The  office  of  human  reason  is  to  foi*- 


144  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

bid  tho  human  mind  to  believo  any  thing  until  the  proper 
evidence  has  been  furnished.  If,  as  we  have  said,  faith 
is  belief  upon  evidence,  then  there  can  be  no  real  faith 
without  the  exercise  of  reason.  Unless  we  were  nat- 
urally disposed  to  doubt  until  reasonable  evidence  is  fur- 
nished, the  human  mind  could  be  easily  imposed  upon 
in  matters  of  faith.  "  To  doubt  at  the  right  place,"  says 
Dr.  Bledsoe  in  his  Theodicy,  "  is  the  best  cure  for  doubt, 
and  to  believe  at  the  wrong  place  is  the  surest  road  to 
Bkepticism."  To  doubt  things  that  ought  to  be  doubted 
is  the  surest  road  to  believing  things  that  ought  to  be 
believed.  Truth  is  not  afraid  of  a  skeptic ;  it  rejoices  to 
meet  him  if  he  is  honest.  It  is  error  that  can  ill  afford 
to  be  called  in  question.  The  Master  feared  not  the 
doubter  with  his  crucial  questions;  He  only  demanded 
that  he  should  be  sincere.  Christianity  has  nothing  to 
lose  from  skepticism,  but  much  to  gain.  Neither  Christ 
nor  Christianity  lost  any  thing  by  the  skepticism  of 
Thomas,  but  gained  much  every  way,  and  his  skepticism 
is  indeed  now  numbered  among  the  credentials  of  Chris- 
tianity. "He  doubted  that  we  might  not  doubt,"  and 
he  also  believed  that  we  might  believe. 

There  is  a  second  form  of  skepticism  that  we  would 
notice  as  sometimes  occurring  in  the  experience  of  a  re- 
generate child  of  God.  It  is  a  skepticism  that  is  born 
of  circumstances,  or  a  combination  of  circumstances, 
which  may  seem  to  the  believer  to  be  incompatible  with 
the  infinite  love  of  an  all-wise  and  omnipotent  God.  The 
believer  here  does  not  deny,  but  ho  finds  himself  ques- 


RELIGIOUS  SKEPTICISM.  145 

tioning,  the  providence  of  God.     Take  the  ease  of  John 
the  Baptist  in  pi-ison,  sending  his  disciples  to  Jesus  to 
know  if  He  was  the  Christ.    John  could  not  understand 
how  it  was  that,  if  Christ  were  really  divine,  He  would 
suffer  him  to  be  cast  into  a  dungeon  and  retained  there 
for  no  other  crime  than  the  simple  and  honest  discharge 
of  his  duty  as  a  preacher  of  righteousness.     Can  it  be 
that  the  omniscient  and  omnipotent  Son  of  God  will  sit 
quietly  by  and  see  a  wicked  and  heartless  tyrant  im- 
prison and  put  to  death  his  own  forerunner  and  prophet 
who  in  the  faithful  and  fearless  discharge  of  his  duty 
has  denounced  the  wickedness  of  royalty  ?    How  can 
Christ   be   divine   and    suffer    this   outrageous  wrong? 
That  was  the  question  that  confronted  John  as  he  sat 
in  his  loneliness  amid  the  damp  walls  and  foul  atmos- 
phere of  the  gloomy  dungeon  of  MachsDrus,  awaiting  his 
execution.     He  did  not  deny  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ, 
but  he  was  thrown  into  doubts,  he  began  to  question,  ho 
could  not  understand,  ho  sought  and  needed  reassurance 
— and  this  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he  had  bap- 
tized Christ  and  seen  the  divine  attestation  that  accom- 
panied that  event.     John's  state  of  mind  was  not  unnat- 
ural in  view  of  all  the  circumstances.     But  his  doubt 
was  sincere  and  honest,  and  it  is  both  interesting  and 
instructive  to  see  how  the  Master  met  it.     He  bade  the 
messengers  take  their  seat  and  wait.     He  was   busy. 
"And  in  that  same  hour  Jesus  cui'cd  many  of  their  dis- 
eases and  plagues  and  evil  spirits ;  and  on  many  that  wore 
blind  he  bestowed  sight.     And  then  ho  answered  .nnd 
10 


146  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOOr. 

said  unto  them.  Go  your  way  and  tell  John  what  things 
ye  have  seen  and  heard:  the  blind  receive  their  sight, 
the  lame  walk,  the  lepers  are  cleansed,  the  deaf  hear,  the 
dead  are  raised  up,  and  the  poor  have  the  gospel  preached 
unto  them.  And  blessed  is  he  whosoever  shall  not  be 
offended  in  me."  That  message  was  doubtless  enough, 
and  was  just  what  he  needed  to  reassure  him  that  Jesus 
was  the  Christ. 

And  so  it  sometimes  occurs  in  the  experiences  of  God's 
children  that  they  are  surrounded  by  circumstances  that 
seem  to  them  for  the  time  being  to  be  irreconcilable  with 
the  overruling  providence  of  an  all-wise  and  an  all-good 
God.  They  are  thrown  into  a  questioning  state  of  mind. 
It  is  usually  trials,  misfortunes,  sorrows,  afflictions,  death 
of  loved  ones  under  circumstances  peculiarly  trying,  that 
plunge  the  despondent  believer  into  this  species  of  skep- 
ticism. While  this  doubt  may  prove  that  his  faith  is 
pot  all  that  it  ought  to  bo,  it  does  not  necessarily  prove 
that  he  does  not  believe  in  and  love  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  I  have  known  good  people  to  get  into  such  a 
state.  It  is  a  period  rather  than  a  state.  It  does  not 
last  long.  The  clouds  roll  away,  and  the  doubting  and 
despondent  believer  not  only  sees  the  sun  again,  but  as  he 
looks  upon  the  receding  clouds,  he  sees  them  lighted  up 
with  brightness  and  glory  from  above.  Faith,  if  thrown 
out  of  its  equipoise,  soon  reacts  and  reasserts  itself.  Such 
skepticism  I  know  is  inconsistent  with  the  highest  ideal 
of  Christian  faith ;  but  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  such 
experiences  do  sometimes  occur  in  the  lives  of  sincere  and 


RLLIGI0U8  SKEPTICISM.  147 

useful  believers  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  If  a  Christian 
ever  finds  himself,  in  a  moment  of  misfortune  and  weak- 
ness, calling  in  question  the  divine  character  of  Chris- 
tianity, he  needs  only  do  what  Christ  bade  the  disciples 
of  John  do — viz.,  consider  the  works  of  Christ  and 
Christianity  through  all  the  ages.  They  are  the  vindi- 
cation of  its  divine  claims  and  the  unanswerable  argu- 
ment in  proof  of  its  divine  origin  and  character.  All  the 
noblest  deeds  of  human  history  and  all  the  blessings  of 
our  civilization  we  owe  to  Christianity.  Christianity 
asks  no  surer  vindication  of  its  divine  claims  than  that 
it  be  studied  and  judged  in  the  light  of  what  it  has  done 
for  the  human  race. 

Again,  is  there  not  a  skepticism  that  pertains  to  youth, 
to  youth  as  it  is  turning  into  manhood  ?  Is  there  not  a 
skeptical  period  through  which  every  thoughtful  young 
Christian,  more  or  less,  must  pass  before  ho  settles  down 
into  the  mature  faith  of  manhood  ?  Not  every  one,  indeed, 
but  certainly  many  do  pass  through  just  such  a  period. 
This  skepticism  marks  the  transition  period  between  the 
immature  faith  of  youth  and  the  mature  faith  of  man- 
hood. A  youth  often  forms  crude  and  childish  ideas  of 
God,  of  heaven,  of  the  soul,  of  the  Bible,  of  all  spiritual 
doctrines  and  things.  Those  crude  ideas  must  be  aban- 
doned and  give  place  to  more  intelligent  and  correct  ideas 
of  spiritual  things.  The  young  Christian,  in  giving  up 
his  early  formed  ideas  of  sj^iritual  things,  is  very  apt  to 
feel  or  to  fear  that  ho  is  giving  up  his  faith  in  these 
things  themselves.    Not   so — certainly  not  necessarily 


148  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

80.  This  test  of  the  faith,  if  met  thoughtfully  and  passed 
successfully,  makes  one  a  stronger  and  more  intelligent 
believer  than  was  possible  before.  It  oftentimes  drives 
the  thoughtful  young  man,  while  his  faith  is  thus  unset- 
tled and  he  is  at  unrest,  to  earnest  study  and  careful  ex- 
amination of  the  evidences  of  his  faith,  and  as  a  result 
he  is  able  to  give  thereafter  an  intelligent  reason  for  the 
hope  and  the  faith  that  is  in  him.  If  the  skepticism  of 
young  manhood  accomplishes  this  result,  it  is  not  an  un- 
mitigated evil  in  one's  life.  Under  religious  instruction 
in  the  nursery,  at  homo  and  at  Sabbath-school,  a  Chris- 
tian youth  grows  up  into  a  religious  faith  without  much 
thinking  for  himself.  The  time  comes  when  this  intel- 
lectual and  religious  creed  of  youth  must  be  recast.  This 
questioning  or  skeptical  period  of  young  manhood  seems 
to  be  the  occasion  for  doing  this. 

This  is  not  only  an  important  but  a  critical  period  in 
a  young  Christian's  life.  For  one  may  come  out  of  this 
uiiHcttled  state  not  only  into  a  stronger  and  more  ration- 
al faith,  but,  unfortunately,  if  the  other  alternative  be 
chosen,  into  a  state  of  agnosticism  or  infidelity.  The  influ- 
ences that  are  around  a  young  man  at  this  critical  time — 
his  companions,  his  spiritual  advisers,  the  books  ho  reads 
— have  much  to  do  with  determining  in  which  of  these 
two  ways  he  will  come  out  of  his  skepticism.  If  ho  has 
positively  Christian  companions,  if  he  is  fortunate  enough 
to  find  sympathetic  spiritual  advisers  who  can  explain 
his  state  of  mind  to  him  and  lead  him  out  of  it,  and  if 
good  books  fall  into  his  hands  and  occupy  his  thoughts, 


ftELIGIOtJS  SKEl>TIC18Jt.  149 

nothing  is  to  be  feared  as  to  the  result.  But  if,  on  the 
other  hand,  his  companions  are  religious  scoffei's  and  con- 
firmed skeptics,  if  he  has  no  wise  and  sympathetic  coun- 
selor from  whom  to  seek  advice,  if  skeptical  books  fall 
into  his  hands,  then  it  is  almost  as  certain  that  he  will 
come  out  a  confirmed  skeptic  or  a  positive  disbeliever  in 
Christianity.  Such  a  lamentable  course  many  young 
men  do  unfortunately  take.  One  of  the  most  earnest 
and  Christian  young  men  of  my  acquaintance  years  ago, 
one  who  had  the  Christian  ministry  in  view,  became 
skeptical  when  about  twenty-one  or  two  years  of  age. 
Just  at  this  critical  time  he  began  reading  the  writings 
of  Matthew  Arnold,  John  Stuart  Mill,  Professor  Hu;cley, 
and  the  like.  It  was  not  long  before  he  decided  not  to 
preach,  and  soon  thereafter  abandoned  all  faith  in  the 
Christian  religion. 

1  have  seen  it  stated  that  Peter  Cooper  was  in  his 
youth  a  Methodist,  but,  becoming  skeptical  concerning 
some  of  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  he  went  to  his 
pastor  for  counsel,  stating  his  doubts  to  him.  But  his 
pastor  met  his  confession  of  religious  doubts  with  no 
sympathy  and  replied  rather  roughly,  telling  him  that  he 
must  confess  his  sin  and  pray  for  divine  forgiveness  just 
as  he  would  for  any  other  sin.  This  was  poor  satisfac- 
tion to  one  in  his  state  of  mind.  He  turned  away  with 
a  sad  heart.  Soon  thereafter  he  chanced  to  go  to  wor- 
ship in  a  Unitarian  Church.  The  preacher  was  telling 
in  his  sermon  of  how  that  he  used  to  be  in  his  youth  an 
orthodox  Christian ;  but  soon  doubts  came.    He  fought 


150  DlSOttSSlOl^S  IN  tHtSOtOGlf. 

a  long  time  with  his  doubts,  thinking  the  orthodox  faith 
must  be  right;  but  presently  it  occurred  to  him  that 
possibly  his  honest  doubts  might  be  founded  in  truth 
and  the  orthodox  faith  be  in  error.  Working  along  that 
line  he  came  to  the  light.  It  was  —  so  the  preacher 
argued — the  only  satisfactory  solution  of  the  skepticism 
inseparable  from  the  orthodox  creed,  viz.,  to  abandon  it 
for  the  rational  and  satisfying  faith  of  Unitarianism.  The 
result  was  that  young  Cooper  became  a  Unitarian.  Had 
his  Methodist  pastor  met  his  doubts  with  sympathy  and 
consideration,  and  prayed  with  him,  Peter  Cooper  might 
have  been  saved  to  Methodism  and  his  life  and  wealth 
have  been  made  a  far  greater  blessing  to  humanity  than 
they  were,  although  he  was,  in  spite  of  his  Unitarianism, 
a  noble  man  and  philanthropist. 

And  even  young  ministers  sometimes  encounter  periods 
of  skepticism,  especially  if  they  never  had  such  an  expe- 
rience before  entering  the  ministry.  The  young  Chris- 
tian grows  up  with  the  idea  that  the  Christian  religion 
is  certainly  true,  and  that  there  is  no  argument  of  any 
weight,  or  worthy  of  any  consideration,  against  it.  But 
when  he  begins  the  study  of  philosophy,  metaphysics, 
science  and  theology,  he  finds  that  there  are  some  real 
arguments  on  the  other  side.  They  are  new  to  him,  and 
while  they  shock  him,  yet  they,  in  a  certain  sense,  have 
a  fascination  for  him.  He  shudders  at  the  consequences 
of  what  opens  before  him  as  a  possibility  even,  viz.,  that 
this  and  that  fact  or  doctrine  of  Christianity  may  not  be 
true  after  all ;  and  if  they  are  not  true,  does  not  the  whole 


ilELiaiOltS  SKEMICISM.  151 

system  of  Christian  Eevelation  likewise  fall  through  with 
them  ?  He  is  disturbed  at  his  thoughts  and  is  made  very 
unhajjpy.  Now  it  is  the  privilege  of  every  Christian  to 
have  the  witness  in  himself  so  clearly  revealed  and  to 
enjoy  so  fully  the  assurance  of  the  faith  that  he  will  bo 
in  no  way  disturbed  at  the  discovery  of  some  arguments 
against  the  divine  character  of  Christianity  of  which  he 
had  no  knowledge  before.  But  not  every  young  Chris- 
tian, not  every  young  minister,  lives  up  to  this  high 
privilege  as  he  ought.  The  faith  of  such  is  much  un- 
settled when  such  an  experience  comes.  Happy  are 
they  who,  when  their  faith  is  thus  sorely  tried,  know  like 
John  the  Baptist  where  to  go  for  reassurance  and  com- 
fort. Ofte  needs  only  to  study  the  works  and  influence 
of  Christianity  in  the  world  to  be  convinced  of  its  divine 
character.  If  such  an  experience  leads  the  young  min- 
ister to  earnest  prayer  and  to  an  examination  of  the  foun- 
dations of  his  faith — and  if  his  prayers  lead  him  to  attain 
the  witness  in  himself,  and  his  examinations  fill  his  mind 
as  never  before  with  the  truth  and  force  of  all  those  great 
evidences  in  proof  of  the  divine  origin  and  character  of 
Christianity  that  have  been  called  forth  by  the  opposing 
arguments  of  the  imbelieving  world — if  this  be  the  out- 
come of  his  experience,  as  it  often  happily  is,  then  he  will 
be  a  better  and  stronger  Christian  and  a  more  efficient 
minister  of  the  gospel  for  having  passed  through  such  an 
experience. 

Many  who  at  this  critical  period  turn  away  from  Chris- 
tianity and  spend  their  lives  in  the  delusions  of  skepti- 


152  !)18CU8810K8  In  TSEOLOGi?. 

cism  yet  come  back  in  the  more  mature  and  sober  rejec- 
tions of  closing  life  to  the  simple  faith  of  their  parents 
and  of  their  childhood.  George  Eliot,  one  of  the  most 
intellectual  women  and  most  popular  writers  of  romance 
in  the  nineteenth  century,  was  reared  in  the  simple  faith 
of  evangelical  Christianity.  Early  in  life  she  became 
skeptical,  and,  in  the  pride  of  intellectual  womanhood, 
abandoned  the  faith  of  her  youth.  Throughout  her  brill- 
iant literary  career  she  was  recognized  as  one  whose  in- 
tellectual gifts  were  used  to  undermine,  i-ather  than  to 
confirm  and  establish,  the  foundations  of  Christian  faith. 
And  yet  it  is  said  that  when  she  came  to  die,  she  gave 
expression  to  a  love  and  sympathy  for  the  faith  of  her 
early  life  that  showed  unmistakably  that,  howsoever  well 
skepticism  might  support  one  in  the  vigor  and  pride  of 
active  life,  the  heart  yearned  for  something  surer  when 
it  was  about  to  take  its  final  leap  into  the  dark  un- 
known. 

So,  too,  Thomas  Carlyle  was  in  early  life  a  consistent 
believer  in  Christ,  and  was  eVen  designed  by  his  pious 
Scotch  parents  for  the  Christian  ministry.  But  becom- 
ing skeptical  in  early  manhood,  he  abandoned  not  only 
the  ministry  but  also  the  faith  of  his  youth  and  of  his  par- 
ents. Throughout  his  long  and  illustrious  literary  career, 
he  wrote  in  a  critical  and  skeptical  way  concerning  many 
of  the  vital  doctrines  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  his  in- 
fluence was  recognized  as  hostile  to  evangelical  Chris- 
tianity. But  when  in  a  ripe  old  ago  he  came  to  die,  that 
hatred  of  sham  and  hypocrisy  and  that  stern  love  of 


fefeLlGlOtJS  St^EPTIClsM.  153 

honesty  and  truth  that  he  had  so  often  given  expression 
to  in  life,  made  his  honest  heart  yearn  for  something 
more  solid  to  rest  upon,  and  he,  too,  virtually  came  back 
to  the  simple  faith  that  his  pious  parents  had  taught  him 
in  his  childhood,  if  his  sayings  were  correctly  i*eported. 

Do  not  understand  me  as  saying  that  these  two  illus- 
trious persons  made  what  is  commonly  called  a  "  death- 
bed repentance"  and  openly  recanted  their  skepticism. 
Nor  do  I  mean  to  say  that  their  biographers  record  the 
facts  that  I  mention  concerning  their  giving  evidence 
toward  their  death  that  faith  was  better  than  doubt  to  die 
with.  No ;  for  the  biographers,  as  well  as  the  admirers, 
of  such  skeptical  and  literary  persons  are  more  concerned 
to  make  their  heroes  consistent  throughout  in  their  life 
and  sayings  than  they  are  to  give  due  weight  to  what 
is  said  by  them  when  death  is  approaching.  It  is  a  well- 
known  fact  that  many  skeptics  and  infidels  when  they 
come  to  face  the  stern  realities  of  another  world,  give 
expression  to  those  about  them  of  their  dissatisfaction 
with  their  skepticism ;  but  rarely  does  a  biographer,  gen- 
erally himself  a  skeptic,  take  any  notice  of  such  facts. 
He  considers  them  as  the  vagaries  incident  to  the  ap- 
proach of  death,  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  man's 
whole  life.  And  this  same  pride  of  consistency  keeps, 
we  believe,  many  a  man  from  abandoning  his  skepticism 
in  the  midst  of  life — having  committed  himself,  he  must 
maintain  his  consistency.  But  to  be  true  is  a  great  deal 
better  than  being  consistent.  To  follow  truth  k  the  only 
real  consistency. 


154  biSOTTSSlONS  IN  TIlEOLOGr. 

John  Randolph  of  Roanoke  is  said  to  have  filled  his 
copy  of  the  "Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Eoman  Empire," 
on  his  first  reading,  with  annotations  on  the  margin,  ap- 
proving the  deistical  notions  of  Gibbon.  Most  of  these 
notes  he  obliterated  in  after  life.  The  following  is  what 
he  wrote  on  the  margin  of  the  celebrated  fifteenth  chap- 
ter, when,  later  in  life,  he  reread  the  book : 

"  When  the  penciled  notes  to  this  and  the  succeeding 
chapter  were  written  the  writer  was  an  unhappy  young 
man  deluded  by  the  sophisms  of  infidelity.  Gibbon 
seemed  to  rivet  what  Hume,  and  Hobbes,  and  Boling- 
broke,  and  Voltaire,  etc.,  had  made  fast,  and  Satan — the 
evil  principle  in  our  (fallen)  nature — had  cherished  ;  but, 
praised  be  his  holy  name,  God  sent  straight  to  his  heart 
the  sense  of  sin  and  the  arrow  of  the  angel  of  death, 
'  unless  ye  repent,'  and  with  it  came  the  desire  of  belief; 
but  the  hard  heart  of  unbelief  withstood  a  long  time,  and 
fear  came  upon  him  and  waxed  great,  and  brought  firat 
resignation  to  his  will,  and  after  much  refractoriness 
(God  be  praised,  but  never  sufficiently,  that  he  bore  with 
the  frowardness  of  the  child  of  sin,  whose  wages  is  death), 
God  in  his  good  time  sent  the  pardon  and  peace  which 
passeth  knowledge  in  the  love  which  struck  out  fear. 
Hallelujah." 

An  eminent  and  useful  missionary  to  India  was  much 
troubled  in  his  young  manhood  with  religious  doubts. 
But  in  the  midst  of  his  doubts  he  yet,  strangely  enough, 
felt  the  call  of  duty  to  go  as  a  missionary  to  India  and 
work  for  the  salvation  of  the  heathen.    He  went.     Years 


RliLIGIOUS  SKEPTICISM.  155 

later  he  returned  to  America  on  a  visit,  his  laboi-s  in  the 
meantime  having  been  crowned  with  abundant  success. 
Some  one  who  had  known  of  his  early  spiritual  troubles 
chanced  to  meet  him  one  day  and  asked  him  how  he  had 
settled  his  relicrious  doubts.  "  I  wont  earnestly  to  work 
for  Christ,"  said  he,  "  and  I  have  been  so  busy  trying  to 
save  the  poor  heathen  among  whom  I  have  been  labor- 
ing for  the  past  several  years,  that  I  have  not  had  time 
to  think  of  my  doubts.  I  never  did  answer  my  difficul- 
ties and  questions.  But  they  ceased  to  trouble  me  when 
I  became  busy  in  the  Master's  work,  and  I  would  not 
waste  the  time  now  that  it  would  take  to  have  them  ex- 
plained." There  are  doubts  born  of  having  nothing  to 
do,  and  the  only  way  to  cure  them  is  to  go  to  work  for 
Christ.  Christians  that  are  busy  in  the  Lord's  work,  in 
helping  the  poor,  in  seeking  and  saving  the  lost,  are  rarely, 
if  ever,  troubled  with  doubts. 

"Nearly  every  young  man  in  civilized  lands,"  says 
Professor  Townsend  of  Boston  University,  "has  his 
period  of  doubt.  I  passed  through  my  period  of  per- 
sonal skepticism  while  at  college.  The  experience  was 
intense,  lasting  perhaps  two  years.  A  few  sensible  re- 
marks from  Dr.  Lord,  president  of  the  college,  suggest- 
ing that  Christianity  is  a  system  which,  to  a  certain 
extent,  can  be  tested  as  other  matters  are  tested,  fur- 
nished a  key  that  subsequently  opened  the  door  leading 
back  to  the  faith  of  early  boyhood." 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  every  Christian's  religious  expe- 
rience is  so  deep,  and  his  relation  to  Christ  so  close,  that 


166  blSOUSSlONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

he  will  not  need  rational  and  theological  arguments  tO  sus-' 
tain  his  faith  when  circumstances  arise  which  might  tend 
to  produce  a  state  of  skepticism.  But,  if  not,  some  facts 
may  be  mentioned  that  will  prove  helpful  to  such  a  one. 
It  is  remarkable  how  often  Christ  appealed  to  his  su- 
pernatural works  as  the  proof  of  his  divine  character. 
And  so  there  is  no  plainer  or  stronger  or  more  satisfac- 
tory argument  in  favor  of  the  divine  origin  and  nature  of 
Christianity  than  to  appeal  to  its  influence  and  work  in 
the  world,  whether  upon  nations,  or  communities,  or  in- 
dividuals. What  has  been  the  effect  of  Christianity  upon 
the  nations  that  have  come  under  its  influence?  Take 
Great  Britain,  for  example,  whose  inhabitants  were,  be- 
fore the  entrance  of  Christianity,  as  thoroughly  heathen 
people  as  are  those  of  China  and  India  to-day.  What 
has  wrought  this  change?  When  Queen  Victoria  was 
asked  by  the  J  apanese  minister  as  to  what  was  the  secret 
of  England's  greatness,  she  very  truthfully  replied,  point- 
ing to  an  open  Bible:  "That  is  the  secret  of  England's 
greatness."  What  is  the  effect  of  the  Christian  religion 
upon  a  community  that  comes  under  its  influence  ?  Take, 
for  example,  such  a  notoriously  wicked  and  lawless  one 
as  "  Five  Points  "  in  the  city  of  New  York.  For  many 
long  years  it  defied  the  law,  and  so  strongly  was  crime 
enthroned  there  that  even  policemen  feared  to  go  there. 
It  continued  such  until  the  Christian  missionaries  began 
their  work  among  the  law-broakers  and  criminals  there. 
But  through  the  influence  of  the  Christian  religion  it  has 
been  transformed  into  one  of  the  most  law-abiding  and 


RELIGIOUS  SKEPTICISM.  157 

moral  sections  of  the  great  city.  How  account  for  the 
transformations  in  moral  character  accomplished  in  the 
thousands  of  individuals  in  almost  every  community  on 
any  other  hypothesis  than  the  divine  character  of  Chris- 
tianity? Never  mind  about  inconsistent  professore  of 
religion — Christianity  is  in  no  way  responsible  for  their 
failures,  but  condemns  them  as  strongly  as  do  the  crit- 
ics of  Christianity.  Judge  Christianity  by  those  who 
do  what  it  bids  men  do,  not  by  those  who  fail  to  do  what 
it  bids  them  do.  The  greatest  and  best  men  that  have 
ever  lived  have  been  believers  in  Christianity  and  have 
ascribed  all  the  good  that  was  in  them  to  the  Christian 
religion.  "A  good  tree  cannot  bring  forth  evil  fruit, 
neither  can  a  corrupt  tree  bring  forth  good  fruit." 

That  Christ  is  the  wisest  and  best  man  that  has  ever 
appeared  in  the  history  of  our  race,  all  men  admit,  oven 
skeptics  and  infidels.  This  wisest  and  best  man  claimed 
to  be  divine :  "  I  and  the  Father  are  one."  That  he  made 
this  claim  is  as  certain  as  that  he  once  lived.  The  doc- 
uments that  prove  to  us  that  he  once  lived  are  the  same 
which  asHort  that  on  many  occasions  and  in  many  ways 
he  claimed  to  bo  divine,  and  the  Jews  fully  understood 
that  he  "  made  himself  equal  with  God."  Now  this  claim 
is  either  true  or  false.  If  false,  it  must  be  because  he 
was  a  willful  impostor  or  was  himself  self-deceived,  a  re- 
ligious fanatic.  Neither  of  which  hypotheses  is  in  the 
remotest  degree  compatible  with  the  univereal  verdict  of 
the  human  race — that  he  is  the  noblest  and  best  man 
that  has  ever  lived. 


158  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

So,  too,  the  Bible  is  universally  conceded  by  all  men, 
whether  believers  in  Christianity  or  not,  to  be  the  best 
book,  in  its  moral  influences,  in  the  literature  of  the  world. 
Now  nothing  is  plainer  than  that  this  best  of  all  books 
claims  to  contain  a  series  of  divine  revelations  from  God. 
If  this  claim  were  not  true,  it  not  only  could  not  be  the 
best  of  books,  but  it  would  be  the  worst  book  in  the  lit- 
erature of  the  world,  an  impious  fraud  from  beginning 
to  end.  To  deny  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures,  would  be 
not  merely  to  affirm  that  one  prophet,  or  inspired  writer, 
was  a  deceiver  or  self-deceived  in  claiming  a  supernatural 
communication  from  God,  but  that  a  succession  of  proph- 
ets and  writers,  extending  over  a  period  of  fifteen  hun- 
dred years,  entered  into  the  pious  fraud,  or  were  alike 
victims  of  a  common  delusion — to  believe  which  would 
require  more  "  blind  faith  "  than  to  believe  the  vain  su- 
perstitions of  Eoman  Catholicism  in  the  dark  ages,  not 
to  -speak  of  the  rational  and  self-consistent  faith  of  intel- 
ligent Christianity  in  the  nineteenth  century.  Before 
one  rejects  Christianity  he  ought  to  consider  what  such 
rejection  necessitates  his  believing  instead  of  it.  For 
every  one  difficulty  that  is  presented  to  the  human  mind 
in  rationally  accepting  Christianity,  there  are  a  hun- 
dred of  a  much  more  serious  nature  involved  in  denying 
Christianity  and  accepting  infidelity.  A  young  person  es- 
pecially is  apt  to  overlook  this  important  and  serious  con- 
sequence growing  out  of  a  rejection  of  the  Christian  faith. 

Again,  Christianity  is  universally  conceded  to  be  the 
best  institution  in  the  world  for  the  moral  elevation  of 


RELIGIOUS  SKEPTICISM.  159 

the  race.  Now  Christianity  claims  that  all  its  distin- 
guishing features  and  doctrines  are  of  divine  origin ;  and 
if  there  is  any  thing  divine  about  it,  it  is  all  divine.  If 
this  claim  is  false,  it  is  the  most  gigantic  fraud  in  exist- 
ence on  the  earth.  Can  it  be  that  that  institution  which, 
in  spite  of  all  its  alleged  defects,  is  yet  the  best  in  exist- 
ence, is  totally  or  even  partially  false?  Can  it  be  that 
it  is  the  most  gigantic  fraud  in  existence  ?  But  it  must 
be  this,  if  it  is  not  of  divine  origin  and  divine  authority. 

Skepticism  makes  life  a  failure.  It  robs  character  of 
its  chief  strength.  The  man  who  does  not  know  what  he 
believes  can  influence  no  one.  It  is  the  man  who  believes 
something,  who  knows  what  he  believes,  who  has  a  faith, 
has  convictions,  and  the  courage  to  state  them,  that  is 
going  to  make  himself  heard  and  going  to  be  believed 
and  to  win  success  among  men.  "  I  don't  know  "  is  the 
language  of  skepticism.  "  I  don't  know  whether  there  is 
a  God — whether  Jesus  Christ  is  divine — whether  there 
is  any  such  thing  as  regeneration  and  spiritual  religion — 
whether  there  is  any  immortality  for  human  souls — I 
don't  know."  "I  know"  is  the  language  of  faith.  "I 
know  that  my  Ecdeemcr  liveth — I  know  whom  I  have 
believed — I  know  that  whereas  I  was  blind  now  I  see — 
I  know  that  I  have  passed  from  darkness  to  light — 1 
know  that  all  things  work  together  for  good  to  them  that 
love  God — I  know  that  if  this  earthly  house  of  my  tab- 
ernacle is  dissolved,  I  have  a  building  of  God,  a  house  not 
made  with  hands  eternal  in  the  heavens." 

And  as  skepticism  makes  life  a  moral  failure  and  en- 


160  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

velops  it  in  gloom,  so  it  throws  darkness  around  the  grave 
and  makes  death  a  leap  into  the  dark  unknown.  We  want 
faith,  not  skepticism,  to  die  with.  "Here  is  an  argu- 
ment," said  Hannah  More,  "  with  which  to  answer  all  the 
sophistries  of  skepticism :  No  man  over  yet  repented  of 
the  Christian  religion  on  his  death-bed."  "  There  is  one 
thing,"  said  a  skeptic,  "  that  mars  all  the  pleasure  of  my 
life :  I  am  afraid  the  Bible  might  be  true."  And  well  he 
may ;  for,  if  it  docs,  his  case  is  hopeless.  But  if  skepti- 
cism or  infidelity,  or  any  anti-christian  "  ism  "  in  exist- 
ence, should  prove  true,  the  Christian  is  just  as  safe  as 
any  one  in  meeting  the  issues  of  eternity. 

Lord  Byron  was  through  life  a   skeptic,  and  died  a 
skeptic's  death.     Among  his  last  words  were  these : 

"  My  life  is  in  the  yellow  leaf, 

The  fruit  and  flower  of  love  are  gone ; 
Henceforth  the  canker  and  the  grief 
Are  mine  alone." 
Paul,  the  Apostle,  was  through  life  a  believer,  and  ho 
died  a  believer's  death.    Among  his  last  words  were  these : 
"  I  am  now  ready  to  be  offered,  and  the  time  of  my  de- 
parture is  at  hand.     I  have  fought  a  good  fight,  I  have 
finished   my  course,  I  have  kept  the  faith :  henceforth 
there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  righteousness,  which 
the  Lord,  the  righteous  judge,  shall  give  me  at  that  day : 
and  not  to  me  only,  but  unto  all  them  also  that  love  his 
appearing." 

I  set  before  you  skepticism  and  faith.    Which  will  you 
take  to  live  with  ?    Which  will  you  take  to  die  with  ? 


A  BRIEF  STUDY  OF  THE  CANON 
OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


Introductory. 

It  is  not  by  any  means  my  purpose  to  undertake  in 
this  place  any  thing  like  an  exhaustive  treatment  of  the 
canon  of  the  New  Testament,  which  is  confessedly  a 
large  and  diflSeult  subject,  but  only  to  indicate  some  of 
the  methods  of  studying  it,  and  some  of  the  facts  bear- 
ing upon  it.  It  is  a  subject,  however,  about  which  it  is 
our  privilege  to  inquire  and  our  duty  to  be  informed.  In 
these  days  nothing  escapes  investigation,  analysis,  criti- 
cism. And  if  we  felt  no  personal  interest  in  this  inquiry, 
as  ministers  we  come  in  contact  with  reading  and  inquir- 
ing men  inside  the  Church  who  do  feel  an  interest  in  it, 
and  whose  questions  we  ought  to  be  able  to  answer,  as 
well  as  with  gainsaying  men  outside  the  Church  who 
have  knowledge  of  these  things,  and  whose  cavils  we 
ought  to  be  able  to  meet. 

Without  stopping  to  give  the  etj'^mology  of  the  word 
canon,  or  to  distinguish  it  from  other  terms,  it  is  suffi- 
cient to  say  that  thei*o  is  in  the  possession  of  the  Church, 
and  has  been  for  many  hundreds  of  years,  a  body  of 
writings  known  as  the  New  Testament,  and  hold  by  all 
bi*anches  of  the  Church  during  all  these  himdi-eds  of 


162  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

years  to  be  of  divine  origin,  inspiration,  and  authority, 
and  so  standing  apart  from  and  superior  to  all  other 
writings  in  existence.  This  collection  of  books  is  what 
is  known  as  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament.  It  stands 
for  us  complete,  closed,  exclusive.  And  yet  it  cannot 
but  be  a  matter  of  groat  interest  to  us  to  know,  if  wo 
may,  the  history  of  this  collection,  when  and  how  it  was 
formed,  how  long  it  has  been  what  it  is  at  present.  It 
would  be  interesting  to  inquire,  if  it  be  done  with  rev- 
erence, what  relation  the  books  of  our  canon  bore  to  the 
great  mass  of  so-called  apocryphal  literature  which  has 
come  down  to  us  from  a  very  early  age,  and  what 
ground  we  have  for  believing  that  the  early  Church, 
with  divinely  attested  qualifications  and  divinely  ap- 
proved tests,  made  a  decided  and  rigid  distinction  be- 
tween the  books  of  our  canon  and  all  other  books. 
Though  we  shall  not  be  able,  with  entire  satisfaction,  to 
answer  all  these  questions,  we  need  have  no  fear,  I  think, 
that  these  investigations  will  result  in  damage  to  the 
foundations  of  our  faith.  On  the  conti*ary,  besides  fur- 
nishing answers  to  inquiries  that  are  natural  and  com- 
mendable, they  will,  it  is  believed,  have  a  positive  apolo- 
getic value,  and  bring  into  cleai*er  light  the  solid  character 
of  the  historical  foundations  of  our  faith.  The  origin  of 
Christianity  will  bear  investigation,  invites  investigation. 
And  if  any  fact  or  event  in  the  history  of  this  world  ever 
endured  investigjition,  the  origin  of  Christianity  more. 
But  all  these  investigations — many-sided,  microscopical, 
irreverent,  hostile,  persistent  as  they  have  been — so  far 


THE  CANON  OF  THE   NEW  TESTAMENT.  163 

from  showing  any  weakness  or  cause  for  wavering,  have 
only  resulted  in  revealing  more  clearly  the  impregnable 
historical  basis  of  Christianity* 
Methods. 

Obviously,  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament,  as  such, 
is  a  different  thing  from  the  canonicity  of  any  single 
book,  and  must  be  treated  in  a  different  way,  though  a 
discussion  of  the  canonicity  of  each  separate  book  would 
constitute  altogether  a  discussion  of  the  canon  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  this  would  be  the  more  thorough 
and  satisfactory  way.f  But  the  canon  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, as  a  whole,  may  be  discussed  with  some  degree 
of  satisfaction  without  descending  to  the  discussion  of 
the  canonicity  of  each  several  book.  Sometimes  it  is 
convenient  to  examine  the  canonicity  of  certain  groups 
of  the  New  Testament  books  j  as,  the  four  Gospels,  the 
catholic  Epistles,,  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  or  the  group 
of  books  constituting  the  so-called  antilegomena.  In 
the  discussion  of  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  as  a 
whole  we  make  use  of  three  well-known  facts : 

1.  The  books  considered  of  apostolic  authority  and 
counted  as  sacred  scripture  were  translated  into  other 
languages,  as  the  Latin  and  Syriac,  and  so  it  happens  in 

*  Compare  the  lecture  on  the  Tubingen  Theory  in  this  vol- 
ume. 

fBoth  methods  are  employed  by  Professor  Charteris  in  his 
work  entitled  "  Canonicity  "  (Edinburgh,  1880).  This  is  an  admi- 
rable work,  and  gives  the  completest  view  of  the  subject  any- 
where to  be  found. 


164  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

this  incidental  way  that  wo  have  lists  preserved  to  us  of 
those  books. 

2.  It  happens  also  that  many  of  the  early  writers  made 
lists  of  the  books  which  in  their  day  were  received  as  sa- 
cred scriptures,  were  read  in  their  assemblies,  and  were 
regarded  as  standing  apart  from  all  other  books  in  exist- 
ence, while  other  writers  make  quotations  from  them. 

3.  A  little  later  Church  councils  took  in  hand  the  con- 
sideration and  settlement  of  this  question,  and  upon 
large  data,  much  of  which  is  not  now  accessible  to  us, 
officially  declared  just  what  books  should  be  regarded  as 
constituting  our  New  Testament. 

The  examination  of  these  lists,  then,  furnished  us  in 
this  threefold  form,  is  what  we  mean  by  a  discussion  of 
the  New  Testament  canon  as  distinguished  from  the 
canonicity  of  any  particular  book  or  of  each  of  the  books 
severally. .  We  shall  find  upon  examination  that  there  is 
substantial  agreement  among  these  lists. 

There  are,  as  Dr.  Addison  Alexander  says,  two  meth- 
ods of  conducting  this  inquiry.  The  first  consists  of  a 
historical  deduction  in  the  order  of  time,  beginning  with 
the  first  notices  of  the  books  and  the  entire  collection, 
and  continuing  to  the  present  time.  The  other,  setting 
out  from  undisputed  and  notorious  facts  belonging  to 
the  present,  traces  up  the  testimony  to  the  times  of  the 
apostles.  The  fact  from  which  wo  sot  out  in  the  use  of 
this  second  method  (which  we  shall  follow  in  this  lect- 
ure) is  that  the  book  now  called  the  New  Testament  is 
the  same  in  every  language  and  throughout  the  world. 


THE  CANON  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  165 

This  cannot  even  be  said  of  the  Old  Testament  script- 
ures, the  canon  of  which  is  different  in  the  opinion  of 
Eoman  Cathohc  and  Protestant  Christians,  the  former 
accepting  the  Old  Testament  Apocrj-pha  as  Scripture, 
while  the  latter  do  not.  But,  though  the  New  Testa- 
ment Apocrypha  are  more  numerous  than  the  Old  Tes- 
tament Apocrypha,  no  one  of  them  is  anywhere  regard- 
ed as  belonging  to  the  canon.  It  is  not  strictly  correct 
to  say  that  this  absolute  identity  of  the  canon  has  ex- 
isted for  fourteen  hundred  years  and  more ;  for  though 
the  Church,  as  a  whole.  Catholic  and  Protestant,  has 
held  the  canon  to  be  the  same,  yet  individual  students 
and  scholars  within  the  pale  of  the  Church  have  at  dif- 
ferent times  questioned,  on  various  grounds,  the  canon- 
icity  of  particular  books ;  as,  for  example,  Martin  Lu- 
ther rejected  the  Epistle  of  James,  that  of  Jude,  and  the 
Apocalypse  of  John ;  and  there  are  scholars  at  the  pres- 
ent day  who  question  the  eanonicity  of  particular  books  ; 
as,  for  example.  Canon  Farrar  questions  that  of  2  Peter.* 
Still,  it  is  true  that,  so  far  as  the  Church  as  a  whole  is 
concerned,  it  is  a  well-known  and  undisputed  fact  that 
the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  has  been  what  it  now 
is  for  nearly  fifteen  hundred  years,  back  to  the  fourth 
century.  So  that  our  investigation  will  have  reference 
to  the  canon  previous  to  that  time. 

*  See  "  Early  Days  of  Christianity,"  p.  99/.  I  say  he  questions 
the  eanonicity  of  it ;  for  though  he  says  it  is  rightly  accepted  as 
canonical,  yet,  in  the  discussion  which  follows,  his  facta  and 
statements  lie  as  much  against  its  eanonicity  as  its  genuineness. 
See  especially  p.  100. 


166  discussions  in  theology. 

The  History  op  the  Canon. 

First  Period,  397-315. — The  complete  canon  of  the 
New  Testament,  as  we  now  have  it,  was  ratified  at  the 
Council  of  Carthage  (397  A.D.),  in  North  Africa,  one  of 
the  most  enlightened  portions  of  the  Church.  The  Coun- 
cil of  Hippo,  in  North  Africa  also,  four  years  earlier  (393 
A.D.),  made  a  definitive  statement  of  the  canon  of  the 
New  Testament  scriptures,  having  previously  ordered 
that  nothing  shall  be  read  in  the  Churches  as  divine 
scriptures  except  the  canonical  scriptures  (prceter  script- 
uras  canonicas).  It  then  specifies  these  as  follows :  The 
canonical  scriptures  are  four  books  of  the  Gospels,  one 
of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul, 
and  one  of  his  also  to  the  Hebrews,  two  Epistles  of  Pe- 
ter, three  of  John,  one  of  James,  one  of  Jude,  and  the 
Apocalypse.  Besides  this,  we  have  the  explicit  testimo- 
ny of  Rufinus,  an  eminent  and  learned  Church  Father 
of  Northern  Italy  (born,  360 ;  died,  410),  who  enumer- 
ates the  books  of  the  New  Testament  by  classes,  as  fol- 
lows :  The  four  Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  four- 
teen Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  two  Epistles  of  Peter,  one  of 
James,  one  of  Jude,  three  of  John,  and  the  Revelation  of 
John.  This  is  not  merely  a  statement  of  his  own  private 
judgment,  but  he  says :  "  These  are  the  scriptures  which 
the  Fathers  have  included  in  the  canon,  Ilcec  sunt  quce  pa- 
tres  inter  canonem  conduserunt." 

Going  now  still  farther  back  in  the  fourth  century, 
and  to  still  another  quarter  of  the  Church,  we  find  in  one 
of  the  letters  of  Athanasius  (born,  296  j  died,  373)  a  state- 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  1C7 

ment  of  the  Alexandrian  canon.  This  contains  a  clear 
and  positive  list  of  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
as  they  are  now  received  with  us.  Moreover,  Athanasi- 
us  adds,  "These  are  the  fountains  of  salvation,  so  that 
whosoever  thirsts  may  fill  himself  with  the  oracles  con- 
tained in  them.  Let  no  one  add  to  them,  or  take  any 
thing  away  from  them,"  which  is  a  strong  statement  of 
his  view  of  the  completeness  and  exclusiveness  of  the 
canon.  So  far,  we  have  not  found  the  least  dissent  from 
our  existing  canon.  ]t  was  received  in  its  present  form, 
as  we  have  seen,  in  the  Latin  Church,  both  of  Italy  and 
North  Africa,  in  the  Greek  Church,  as  is  testified  by 
Athanasius ;  and  the  fact  that  Ephrem  Syrus,  the  great- 
est Syrian  father  (died  378),  quotes  in  his  extant  writings 
every  one  of  the  books  of  our  present  canon  is  sufficient 
proof  that  at  the  time  in  question  the  Syrian  canon  was 
the  same. 

The  next  writer  that  we  come  to  in  this  retrogade 
investigation  is  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  in  Cappadocia 
(born,  330 ;  ordained,  361 ;  died,  389).  He  received  all 
the  books  of  our  canon,  with  the  exception  of  the  Apoc- 
alypse of  St.  John,  which  is  excluded  from  his  cata- 
logue. Cyril,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  from  350  to  381,  gives 
the  following  catalogue :  Four  Gospels,  with  a  positive 
exclusion  of  all  others  as  spurious  and  injurious  (^(/'eudeni- 
Ypa<pa  xai  ^Xaj^spd),  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  seven  catholic 
Epistles,  and  fourteen  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  He  makes 
no  mention  of  the  Apocalypse,  it  will  be  observed. 

So  far,  we  find  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  to  bo 
the  same  as  at  the  pi-esent  day,  with  the  single  exception 


168  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

of  the  Apocalypse  or  Eevelation  of  John,  which  is  ex- 
cluded from  the  catalogues  of  Gregory  and  Cyril.  Fur- 
ther than  this,  no  intimation  has  been  found  of  any 
question  concerning  the  other  books. 

Eusebius,  S^O-315. — We  come  now  to  the  catalogue 
or  canon  of  the  celebrated  Eusebius,  the  learned  and 
scholarly  Church  historian,  who  was  Bishop  of  Csesarea 
in  Palestine  from  315  to  340.  He  was  the  confiden- 
tial friend  and  adviser  of  Constantino  the  Great,  and 
wrote  a  biography  of  him  which  is  still  extant.  His 
work  on  Church  History  has  earned  for  him  the  distinc- 
tion of  "  Father  of  Church  History."  His  testimony 
concerning  the  canon  is  full  and  discriminating,  though 
it  is  not  free  from  difficulties.  He  divides  the  writings 
that  were  current  among  Christians  in  his  day,  and  claim- 
ing to  emanate  from  the  apostolic  age,  into  three  great 
classes : 

1.  The  homologoumena,  or  undisputed. 

2.  The  antilegomena,  or  disputed. 

3.  The  notha,  or  spurious. 

Perhaps  it  will  not  be  improper  to  quote  the  passage 
in  full :  This  appears  to  be  the  proper  place  to  give  a 
summary  statement  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament. 
And  here  among  the  first  must  be  placed  the  holy  qua- 
ternion of  the  Gospels  ;  these  are  followed  by  the  book 
of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  after  this  must  be  mentioned 
the  fourteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  which  are  followed  by  the 
acknowledged  first  Epistle  of  John,  also  the  first  of  Peter, 
to  be  admitted  in  like  manner.    After  these  is  to  bo 


THE  CANON  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  169 

placed,  if  proper  (e?  ye  faveifj  *),  the  Eevelation  of  John. 
These  then  are  acknowledged  as  genuine  (dfioXoyoofieva). 
Among  the  disputed  books  (^avrdeydfieva),  although  they 
are  well  known  and  approved  by  many,  is  that  called  the 
Epistle  of  James  and  that  of  Jude  and  also  the  second 
Epistle  of  Peter  and  those  called  the  second  and  third  of 
John.     (He  speaks  of  Hebrews  as  disputed  in  Bk.  iii.  3.) 

Among  the  spurious  (y6da)  must  be  numbered  the 
books  called  the  "Acts  of  Paul,"  that  called  "Pastor," 
that  called  the  "  Eevelation  of  Peter,"  the  "  Epistle  of 
Barnabas,"  and  what  are  called  the  "  Teachings  or  Insti- 
tutions of  the  Apostles."  Some  also  number  aimong 
these  the  gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews.  (E.  H.,  iii.  25.) 

As  has  been  said,  Euscbius  does  not  express  any  doubt 
of  his  own  concerning  the  so-called  antilegoTnena,f  but 
only  records  the  doubts  of  others  and  gives  a  statement 
and  history  of  the  question,  so  to  speak. 

One  thing  must  be  borne  in  mind  in  examining  the  state- 
ments and  testimony  of  Eusebius  concerning  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament  canon,  a  consideration  that  will  be 
helpful  in  examining  the  references  to  New  Testament 
books  found  in  the  writings  of  the  ages  preceding  Eusebius, 
and  this  is,  that  there  existed  then  much  evidence  which  is 
no  longer  available  for  us.  Canon  Farrar  is  therefore  hasty 
and  inaccurate  in  his  statement  that  "  the  Church  of  the 
fourth  century  had  not  the  least  pretense  to  greater  au- 
thority than  the  Church  of  the  nineteenth."  |    They  did 

*  Westcott  says  this  seems  to  mean  in  case  its  authenticity  is 
admitted, 
.t  Compare  Bk.  iii.  3. 
t"  Kirly  Days  of  Christianity,"  p.  98. 


170  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOQT. 

have  abundantly  more  evidence  than  we  have,  and  conse- 
quently had  a  better  right  to  judge ;  and  as  we  shall  see 
further  on,  they  were  discriminating,  hesitating  and  cau- 
tious to  a  fault  in  deciding  upon  the  reception  of  any 
book  into  the  canon. 

Now  it  is  true  that  Eusebius  does  not  always  cite  his 
authorities,  nor  does  he  by  any  means  enumerate  or  name 
all  the  books  which  according  to  our  certain  knowledge 
he  had  access  to.  This  "  silence  of  Eusebius  "  has  been 
made  much  of  by  the  author  of  "  Supernatural  Religion," 
a  pretentious  and  plausible  book,  published  in  England 
some  years  ago.  The  difficulty  raised  by  this  author  on 
the  "  silence  of  Eusebius  "  has  been  completely  and  tri- 
umphantly laid  by  Bishop  Lightfoot  in  articles  of  sur- 
passing ability  published  in  the  Contemporary  Review  for 
1875.  The  author  of  "  Supernatural  Religion "  claims 
that  as  Eusebius  promises  to  bring  forward  every  ref- 
erence to  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  found  in 
ecclesiastical  writers  (H.  E.,  Bk.  iii.  3),  when  he  does 
not  adduce  any  such  reference  by  any  such  author, 
it  is  proof  that  that  author  had  nothing  concerning  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  and  knew  nothing  of  them. 
For  example,  the  extracts  quoted  from  Hegesippus 
by  Eusebius  contain  no  reference  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment books,  but  only  to  a  certain  apocryphal  book. 
Therefore  Hegesippus  did  not  use  our  New  Testament 
books. 

But  this  author  has  simply  misunderstood  Eusebius. 
Eusebius  does  not  promise  to  record  every  reference  to 


TBB  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  171 

New  Testament  books  in  various  writers,  but  only  refer- 
ences to  the  disputed  books  (the  so-called  ajitilegomend). 
He  says  (H.  E.,  Bk.  iii.  3) :  "As  the  history  goes  forward, 

1  shall  make  it  a  business  to  show,  along  with  the  suc- 
cessions of  bishops,  which  of  the  ecclesiastical  writers  in 
their  sevei*al  times  used  any  of  the  antilegomena  *  and 
which  of  them  they  used,  and  also  what  things  have  been 
said  by  them  concerning  the  canonical  and  acknowledged 
writings  and  whatever  things  have  been  said  by  them 
concerning  those  not  such."  This  means  that  he  will,  for 
the  purpose  of  helping  decide  the  question  of  the  canon- 
icity  of  the  antilegomena,  show  what  writers  used  them 
(i.  e.,  the  antilegomena);  but  that  he  will  only  relate 
facts  and  incidents  concerning  the  universally  acknowl- 
edged books  (the  homologoumena),  as,  for  example,  how 
they  came  to  be  written  and  under  what  circumstances. 
And  this  is  precisely  what  he  does.  Hence  he  does  not  re- 
fer to  Polycai'p's  quotations  of  Paul,  though  he  had  Poly- 
carp's  letter  and  mentions  it.  He  does  not  refer  to  Igna- 
tius' frequent  quotations  from  the  canonical  books,  though 
he  had  the  epistles  of  Ignatius  and  gives  quite  a  lengthy 
account  of  them  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  Bk.  iii.  36. 
So  again,  he  quotes  a  reference  by  Clement  of  Eome  to 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  because  it  was  one  of  the 
antilegomena,  but  nowhere  mentions  the  explicit  state- 
ment of  Clement  that  Paul  wrote  to  the  Corinthians,  be- 
cause this  was  an  acknowledged  book  and  there  was  no 

♦These  are,  as  has  already  been  said,  James,  Hebrews,  Jude, 

2  Peter,  2  and  3  John,  and  the  Apocalyiise, 


172  DISCUSSIONS  Iir  THEOLOGY. 

need  of  adducing  testimony  from  Clement  for  it.  Now 
it  happens  that  we  have  the  letter  of  Polycarp,  those  of 
Ignatius,  and  that  of  Clement,  and  we  see  that  they  did 
refer  to  and  quote  from  the  undisputed  books  repeatedly, 
although  Eusebius  is  silent  concerning  these  quotations. 

Moreover,  that  this  is  the  correct  interpretation  of  the 
passage  where  Eusebius  makes  his  promise  is  abundantly 
confirmed  by  his  practice.  For  he  does  give  accounts  of 
the  manner  in  which  the  undisputed  books  originated  or 
any  other  matter  of  history  he  happened  to  know  con- 
cerning them,  as,  for  example,  in  Bk.  iii.  24,  he  shows  in 
what  way  the  four  Gospels  came  to  be  written  and  in 
what  order.  This  is  further  confirmed  by  what  he  says 
also  in  Bk.  v.  8,  where  he  repeats  his  promise. 

But  when  Eusebius  mentions  the  reference  of  any 
writer  to  uncanonical  books,  and  does  not  mention  that 
writer's  reference  to  the  canonical  books,  the  author  of 
"  Supernatural  Eeligion  "  and  critics  of  his  class  jump  to 
the  conclusion  that  that  writer  knew  only  those  uncanon- 
ical books.  But  we  happen  to  have  the  writings  of  some 
men  whose  references  to  disputed  books  Eusebius  has 
preserved,  though  at  the  same  time  not  mentioning  any 
reference  of  theirs  to  the  canonical  or  undisputed  books ; 
and  yet  in  these  writings,  many  of  which  we  have,  we 
find  that  these  men  do  refer  to  the  canonical  books.  For 
example,  Eusebius  mentions  the  reference  to  the  Apoca- 
lypse found  in  the  writings  of  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  but 
ignores  entirely  his  direct  quotations  from  the  Gospel  of 
John. 


THE  CANON  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  173 

Second  Period,  315-170. — Leaving  Eusebius,  the  next 
period  will  extend  from  his  time  back  to  the  date  of  the 
earliest  regular  lists  which  remain  to  us  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment books:  315-170.  In  thisperiodwe  need  refer  to  only 
four  authors — Origen,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertullian, 
and  IrenoBus — but  the  last  in  particular  because  of  the 
peculiar  character  and  value  of  his  testimony.  If  the 
Latin  translation  of  Origen's  Homilies  be  trustworthy, 
he  held  the  same  canon  which  we  have  at  the  present 
time,  but  it  is  known  that  the  Latin  translator  did  in 
some  instances  modify  the  teaching  of  Origen.  "  There 
is,  however,  ample  evidence  in  the  untranslated  writings 
of  Origen  that  he  received  all  the  books  of  our  canon  ex- 
cept that  he  appears  to  have  no  quotations  from  the 
Epistle  of  James,  2  Peter,  and  2  and  3  John."  "  He  ac- 
cepted the  Apocalypse  of  John  as  the  undoubted  work  of 
the  Apostle  John."  (Westcott.)  The  canon  of  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  Origen's  predecessor  and  preceptor  (220 
A.D.),  was  the  same  as  that  of  Origen. 

Tertullian  (A.D.  160-222),  the  oldest  Latin  Father,  and 
with  one  exception  the  ablest  and  greatest,  recognizes  in 
his  writings,  says  Charteris,*  all  the  books  of  our  New 
Testament  except  James,  2  Peter,  and  2  and  3  John. 
Moreover,  besides  thus  recognizing  the  books  of  our  New 
Testament  canon,  he  speaks  of  "  the  whole  instrument,"  f 

*  See  "  Canonicity,"  p.  46.  Charteris  gives  all  his  quotations  in 
the  original  languages,  but  generalizes  and  summarizes  in  English. 

t  He  says  that  the  heretical  teacher,  Valentinus,  used  "  the 
whole  instrument,"  but  perverted  the  meaning  by  his  fklse  in- 
terpretation. 


174  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

meaning  by  that  the  New  Testament  as  a  whole  and  ac- 
cording to  Westcott  "  the  canon  of  North  Africa  in  Ter- 
tuUian's  time,  as  shown  by  the  Latin  Yersion,  prepared 
there  about  A.D.  170,  included  all  the  books  of  our  New 
Testament  but  James  and  Second  Peter." 

Irenceus,  177. — Because  of  the  importance  of  the  testi- 
mony of  Irenceus  it  will  be  proper  to  present  a  fuller  ac- 
count of  this  illustrious  Gallican  Father.*  He  was  bom 
probably  about  A.D.  120.  At  any  rate,  the  important  fact 
is  that  he  was  connected  directly  with  the  apostles  and  the 
apostolic  age  by  two  distinct  personal  links,  if  not  more. 
He  must  have  been  16  or  18  years  old  when  Polycarp  was 
teaching  and  Irenaeus  heard  him.  Polycarp  himself  was 
born  A.D.  69,  and  must  have  been  30  years  old  when  St. 
John  died.  Irensous  says  he  remembered  much  about  Poly- 
carp's  conversations,  his  discourses,  and  even  his  manner 
and  expressions  and  especially  what  he  said  about  his  in- 
tercourse with  St.  John  and  other  personal  disciples  of 
Jesus.  Then  he  adds  that  their  accounts  were  entirely 
in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures. 

But  Irenaeus  was  connected  with  the  apostolic  age  by 
another  companionship.  He  was  the  leading  elder  in  the 
Church  of  Lyons  in  Gaul,  of  which  Pothinus  was  bishop, 
and  he  succeeded  Pothinus  on  the  martyrdom  of  the  lat- 
ter in  177  or  178.  So  he  must  have  had  almost  daily  in- 
tercourse with  Pothinus.  But  Pothinus,  we  know,  lived 
to  be  more  than  90  years  old,  which  would  put  his  birth 

*  In  this  account  of  Irenseus  and  his  testimony  I  have  followed 
Lightfoot's  Essays  in  the  Contemporary  Review  for  1875. 


THE  CANON  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  175 

about  A.D.  87,  making  him  at  least  ten  years  old  when 
St.  John  died.  Moreover,  there  is  every  reason  for  be- 
lieving that  PothinuH,  like  Irenoeus,  went  originally  from 
Asia  Minor,  and  he  must  have  known  whether  certain 
writings  attributed  to  the  apostles  and  evangelists  had 
been  in  circulation  as  long  as  he  could  remember,  or 
whether  they  came  to  his  knowledge  only  the  other  day, 
when  he  was  already  advanced  in  life.  Moreover,  in  his 
work  on  Heresies,  Bk.  IV.  27,  Irena^us  gives  an  account 
of  elaborate  discourses  which  he  had  heard  from  a  cer- 
tain "  Elder "  who  had  himself  "  listened  to  those  who 
had  seen  the  apostles  and  to  those  who  had  been  disci- 
ples," i.  e.,  pei-sonal  followers  of  Christ.  It  seems  most 
natural  to  identify  this  "  Elder  "  with  Pothinus.  But  if 
this  elder  was  not  Pothinus,  then  ho  forms  a  third  dis- 
tinct link  of  connection  between  Irenaus  and  the  apos- 
tolic age.  Whoever  he  was,  it  is  clear  that  the  intercouree 
of  Irenffius  with  him  was  both  frequent  and  intimate. 
"  The  Elder  used  to  say ; "  "  the  Elder  used  to  refresh  us 
with  accounts  of  the  ancient  worthies ; "  "  the  Elder  used 
to  discuss" — these  are  some  of  the  expressions  which 
Ircnajus  uses  in  writing  of  this  anonymous  elder.  So 
that  Irenajus  could  not  have  failed  to  ascertain  the  m!nd 
of  the  early  Church  with  regard  to  the  evangelical  and 
apostolic  writings.  Nor  were  these  the  only  advantages 
which  Irenffius  enjoyed.  When  he  speaks  of  the  recog- 
nition of  the  canonical  writings,  his  testimony  represents 
three  Churches  at  least : 

1.  In  youth  ho  was  brought  up  in  Asia  Minor. 


176  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

2.  In  middle  life  he  staid  for  some  time  in  Rome, 
wiyther  he  had  gone  on  an  important  mission.  One  of 
the  manuscripts  of  the  martyrdom  of  Polycai-p  says  that 
"  Irenseus,  being  in  Rome  at  the  time  of  the  martyrdom 
of  Polycarp,  taught  many."  Besides,  the  letter  of  the 
Churches  of  Yienne  and  Lyons,  preserved  in  Eusebius, 
was  sent  by  Irenaeus  to  Rome.     Eccl.  Hist.,  Bk.  v.  4. 

3.  Before  and  after  this  he  held  for  many  years  a 
prominent  position  in  the  Church  of  Gaul,  as,  first,  a 
leading  Elder  and  afterward  Bishop  of  Lyons. 

He  was  engaged  in  all  the  most  important  controver- 
sies of  the  day.  He  gave  lectures,  as  we  happen  to  know, 
for  Hippolytus*  attended  his  lectures  on  "All  the  Here- 
sies," delivered  perhaps  during  one  of  his  sojourns  at 
Rome.  He  was  a  diligent  letter-writer,  interesting  him- 
self in  the  difficulties  and  dissensions  of  distant  Churches. 
He  composed  several  treatises  whose  general  character 
may  be  estimated  from  his  extant  works.  The  subjects 
which  he  treated  forced  him  to  an  examination  of  the 
Scriptures  which  constituted  the  canon.  In  connection 
with  the  Montanist  controversy,  in  which  he  took  a 
chief  part,  he  had  to  examine  the  doctrine  of  the  Para- 
clete in  the  fourth  Gospel.  He  was  equally  prominent  in 
the  Paschal  controversy,  into  which  the  relation  between 
the  Synoptists  and  John  entered  largely.  He  was  con- 
tending all  his  life  against  heretics  of  one  sort  or  another, 

*  Hippolytus  was  Bishop  of  Portus,  near  Rome,  in  the  first 
quarter  of  the  third  century.  He  afterward  wrote  himself  a 
"  Refutation  of  All  Heresies." 


THE  CANON  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  177 

and  constantly  appealed  to  the  Scripture  records  for  test- 
ing and  refuting  their  errors,  as  we  see  in  his  extant 
works. 

He  possessed  exceptional  opportunities  for  forming  an 
opinion  on  the  points  at  issue.  His  honesty  is  beyond 
the  reach  of  suspicion.  Ho  was  a  man  of  intelligence 
and  culture,  with  a  considerable  knowledge  of  classical 
literature,  though  he  makes  no  parade  of  it.  He  argues 
against  his  opponents  with  much  patience.  His  work  is 
systematic,  and  occasionally  shows  great  acuteness.  In 
short,  Irenseus  betrays  no  incapacity  which  affects  his 
competency  as  a  witness  to  a  broad  and  comprehensive 
fact. 

So  much,  then,  for  the  witness,  his  opportunities,  qualifi- 
cations, and  competency.  We  are  now  prepared  to  exam- 
ine his  testimony.  As  to  the  authority,  says  Lightfoot, 
attributed  by  Irenaeus  to  the  fbur  Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  several  of  the  catholic 
Epistles,  and  the  Apocalypse,  it  falls  short  in  no  reject  of 
the  estimate  of  the  Church  catholic  in  the  fourth  or  the 
ninth  or  the  nineteenth  century.  He  treats  them  just  as 
he  does  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  cites  them  as 
Scripture,  attributes  them  to  the  respective  authore 
whose  names  they  bear.  He  regards  them  as  handed 
down  in  the  Churches  from  the  beginning ;  he  fills  his 
pages  with  quotations  from  them ;  he  has  not  only  a  very 
thorough  knowledge  of  their  contents  himself,  but  he  as- 
sumes a  recognition  of  and  an  acquaintance  with  them 
in  his  readers. 
12 


178  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

For  example  and  especially  in  the  third  book*  he  un- 
dertakes to  refute  the  opinions  of  his  Valentinian  oppo- 
nents directly  from  the  Scriptures,  and  because  they  added 
other  gospels  to  which  they  appealed,  he  relates  briefly 
the  circumstances  under  which  our  four  Gospels  were 
written.  He  points  out  that  the  writings  of  the  evan- 
gelists arose  directly  from  the  oral  gospel  of  the  apostles. 
He  shows  that  the  traditions  of  the  apostles  were  pre- 
served by  a  direct  succession  of  elders  which  in  the  prin- 
cipal Churches  can  be  traced  man  by  man,  and  he  asserts 
tJiat  this  teaching  accords  entirely  with  the  evangelical  and 
apostolical  writings. 

He  maintains,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  heretics  was  of  comparatively  recent  growth.  He 
assumes  throughout  not  only  that  our  four  canonical 
Gospels  alone  were  acknowledged  in  the  Church,  but  that 
this  had  been  so  from  the  beginning.  The  Valentinian 
heretics  accepted  these,  but  superadded  others  to  which 
they  appealed,  while  heretics  of  a  different  type,  as  Mar- 
cion,  for  example,  adopted  some  one  Gospel  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  all  others.  He  argues  there  could  not  be  more 
nor  less  than  four  Gospels.  There  are  four  regions  of  the 
world,  and  the  Church  must  be  supported  by  four  Gos- 
pels as  by  four  pillars.  Again  there  are  four  general 
covenants  of  Noah,  of  Abraham,  of  Moses,  of  Christ.  It 
is  therefore  audacious  folly,  he  says,  to  increase  or  dimin- 

*  Irenaeus  "Against  Heresies,"  Bk.  III.,  Chapter  11,  pp.  426-28, 
Vol.  I.  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  published  by  Christian  Literature 
Co.,  35  Bond  Street,  N.  Y. 


THE  CANON  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  179 

ish  the  number  of  the  Gospels.  Can  we  imagine,  he  con- 
tinues, that  these  documents  sprung  up  at  once  full- 
armed  from  the  earth,  no  one  could  say  how?  and 
that  they  had  taken  their  position  at  once  by  the  side  of 
the  Law,  the  Psalmist,  and  the  Prophets  as  the  very 
voice  of  God  ? 

From  this  it  appears  that  Irenseus  exercised  the  most 
rigid  discrimination  and  that  he  was  as  severe  in  exclud- 
ing all  the  apocryphal  trash  which  some  "  liberal "  critics 
would  like  to  put  along-side  our  canonical  Gospels,  as  he 
was  vehement  in  defending  each  one  of  the  holy  four 
against  the  intemperate  and  irreverent  manipulation  of 
men  who,  like  Marcion,  ventured  to  mutilate  them.  And 
for  all  this  he  gives  the  best  and  most  satisfactory  rea- 
sons. But  not  only  is  the  testimony  of  Irenseus  explicit 
as  to  the  Gospels,  it  is  so  also  as  to  nearly  all  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament.  The  only  books  of  our  Now 
Testament  that  are  not  quoted  by  him  are  Philemon, 
Judo,  and  3  John,  which  probably  escaped  quotation  on 
account  of  their  brevity  or  the  personal  character  of 
their  contents,  or  both. 

When  we  come  to  the  lists  of  which  mention  was  made 
in  the  first  part  of  this  paper,  we  find  a  remarkable 
agreement  between  them  and  the  testimony  given  by 
Irenffius. 

The  Old  Latin  Version,  150-170.— Tho  old  Latin  Ver- 
sion (giving  the  canon  of  North  Africa),  which  was  pre- 
pared as  early  as  A.D.  170  and  was  already  in  existence 
when  Irensous  wrote  his  work,  had,  according  to  Mr.  West- 


180  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

cott,  "  the  four  Gospels,  the  Acts,  thirteen  Epistles  of  St, 
Paul,  the  three  catholic  Epistles  of  St.  John,  the  First  Epis- 
tle of  Peter,  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse.  To 
these  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  added  before  the 
time  of  Tertullian."  In  other  words,  it  had  all  the  books 
of  our  existing  canon  except  James  and  2  Peter. 

Tlie  Muratorian  Fragment,  170. — The  next  of  these  lists 
which  we  shall  mention  is  that  known  as  the  Muratorian 
Fragment,  discovered  in  manuscrij)t  form  by  Muratori  in 
the  library  of  Milan  and  published  by  him  in  1740.  It  is 
very  mutilated  and  fragmentary,  and  presents  the  most 
perplexing  difficulties.  Without  discussing  these,  we  may 
say  with  Chateris,*  who  is  very  cautious  and  candid  in  es- 
timating its  testimony,  that  it  bears  witness  to  the  Gospels, 
thirteen  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  Acts,  at  least  two  Epistles  of 
St.  John,  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse.  Light- 
foot  thinks  that  it  probably  bears  witness  also  to  the  other 
Epistle  of  John  besides  the  two  above  mentioned,  and 
Westcott  that  a  clause  in  it  probably  refers  to  Hebrews 
as  written  by  a  friend  of  St.  Paul.  He  also  discovers  in- 
dications of  two  breaks  in  the  fragment  where  the  Epistle 
of  James  and  First  and  Second  Peter  may  have  been 
named  in  the  original  list. 

This  list  probably  represents  the  Eoman  canon. 

The  Syriac  Version,  170. — There  is  one  other  catalogue 
of  New  Testament  books  dating  from  the  second  century 

*  He  gives  the  Latin  text  of  the  Fragment  on  p.  3  of  his  work 
on  "  Canonicity  "  and  discusses  it  on  p.  79  and  following  of  his 
Introdudion  to  that  volume. 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  181 

and  representing  still  another  quarter  of  the  Church. 
This  is  the  Syriac  Version  of  the  New  Testament.  It 
was  probably  in  use  before  A.D.  170.  "  Its  list  of  books  is 
the  same  as  our  present  canon,  save  that  it  wants  the 
Apocalypse,  Jude,  2  Peter,  and  2  and  3  John."  (Charteris). 

Thus  there  is  substantial  agreement  among  the  canons 
of  this  period,  namely,  that  of  Irenseus,*  the  old  Latin, 
the  Muratorian,  and  the  Syriac.  But  it  must  be  remem- 
bered, as  Bishop  Lightfoot  says,  that  the  canon  of  the 
New  Testament  was  not  taken  up  by  Church  councils 
till  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century.  When  we  find, 
therefore,  this  agreement  on  all  sides  in  the  closing 
years  of  the  second  century,  without  any  formal  enact- 
ment, we  can  only  explain  it  as  a  consequence  of  inde- 
pendent testimony  showing  that  the  general  sense  of  the 
Church  had  singled  out  the  books  which  they  had  reason 
for  accepting  and  holding  as  apostolical,  inspired,  and  ca- 
nonical. 

The  Antilegomena. — But  what  are  we  to  say  concerning 
the  omission  of  some  of  our  canonical  books  from  these 
lists  ?  We  have  already  seen  from  Eusebius  that  in  his 
day  seven  of  the  books  of  our  canon  were  questioned  by 
some,  and  so  got  the  name  of  antilegomena.  These  seven 
were  the  Apocalypse,  Hebrews,  James,  Jude,  2  Peter,  and 

*Not  that  Irenseus  gives  a  formal  list  of  the  books  composing 
the  canon  in  his  day.  We  arrive  at  a  knowle<lge  of  his  canon 
from  his  quotations  of  the  New  Testament  books.  If  he  had 
given  a  formal  statement  of  the  canon,  it  would  most  probably 
have  coincided  exactly  with  our  present  existing  canon. 


1S2  ClSCtlSSlONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

2  and  3  John.  We  find  that  one  or  more  of  these  seven 
books  are  wanting  in  the  last  four  catalogues  we  have  ex- 
amined, namely,  the  old  Latin  Vei^sion,  the  Muratorian 
Canon,  the  Canon  of  Irenaeus,  and  the  Syriac  Version. 
This  is  probably  the  reason  that  later,  or  in  the  time  of 
Eusebius,  there  were  still  some  who  questioned  these 
books.  It  is  not  possible  within  the  limits  of  this  paper 
to  make  a  thorough  investigation  of  them,  but  we  may 
speak  of  them  roughly,  taking  up  each  one  separately. 

The  Apocalypse. — If  we  take  the  Apocalypse  first,  we 
find  it  is  wanting  in  the  Syriac  Version,  though  it  stands 
in  the  old  Latin  Version,  the  Muratorian  Canon,  and  the 
Canon  of  Irenseus.  Its  omission  in  the  Syriac  Version  may 
be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the  ancient  versions  of 
the  Scripture  were  not  made  for  general  circulation,  as 
now,  but  to  be  read  in  the  Church-service,  and  the  Apoca- 
lypse was  thought  to  be  unsuited  to  that  purpose,  just  as, 
until  the  last  three  or  four  years,  the  Episcopal  Church 
both  of  England  and  America  omitted  it  almost  wholly  in 
her  calendar  of  lessons,*  though  expressly  specifying  it  in 
her  articles  of  faith  as  a  part  of  Scripture.  It  will  be 
remembered  that  the  Apocalypse  was  excluded  by  some 
Church  Fathers  of  the  fourth  century .f  This  is  explained 
by  the  fact  that  at  that  time  millenarian  doctrines  of  a 
gross  form  prevailed.  These  views  were  so  repudiated 
by  the  Church  in  general  and  by  some  distinguished 

*This  bit  of  information  is  due  to  a  friend  who  is  a  clergyman 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 
tSee  pages  167, 168.   . 


THE  CANON  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  183 

teachers  in  particular  that  they  rejected  that  portion  of 
Scripture  which  contained  the  passage  held  to  be  the 
foundation  of  these  erroneous  doctrines,  as  Martin  Luther 
erected  an  arbitrary  standard  of  his  own  and  rejected  the 
Epistle  of  James  because  it  seemed  to  conflict  with  Paul's 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith. 

The  testimony  of  Irenaeus  is  very  important.  He  not 
only  testifies  to  the  canonicity  of  the  Apocalypse  but  to 
the  authorship  of  John  the  Apostle.  (Bk.  IV.,  20.  11.) 
8ed  Joannes,  Domini  discipulus,  in  Apocalypsi  gloriosum 
regni  videns  adventum,  .  .  .  inquit,  etc.  The  Apoca- 
lypse is  quoted  three  times  in  the  Letter  of  the  Church  of 
Vienne  and  Lyons,  once  as  Scripture,  ha  ^  ypa^ij  Tckrjpmd^, 
etc.  (Eusebius,  H.  E.,  v.  1.)  This  letter  was  sent  by 
Irenffius  to  Home.  Justin  Martyr  has  an  explicit  quota- 
tion of  the  Apocalypse,  which  is  indeed  his  only  citation 
of  a  New  Testament  book  by  name.  He  says,  ^'■Kai  dvifp  rt? 
7ra/5  ^filv,  a»  Svofia  ^ luidvvyje;,  elc  raiv  dnoaToXtov  tou  XpiaTou,  iv 
dnoxaXuipet  i:poe(prjreoae  rohq  r(p  Xpiarift  Tzt<TTeu<ravTa<;  noc/jaecv 
Xiha  ETTj  iv  'lepouffaXyjp."  "A  certain  man  among  us, 
John  by  name,  one  of  Christ's  apostles,  prophesied  in 
the  Apocalypse  that  believers  in  Christ  would  spend  a 
thousand  years  in  Jerusalem."  (Dial.  w.  Trypho,  ch.  81.) 
"Papias,  who  came  into  contact  with  the  early  disciples, 
and  perhaps  with  John  himself,  quoted  the  Apocalypse 
as  inspired  and  trustworthy."     (Charteris.) 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. — As  to  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  it  is  witnessed  to  by  the  Canon  of  Irenaeus,  by 
the  Syriac  Version,  by  the  old  Latin  Version,  though 


184  DISCUSSlDNS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

added  a  little  after  its  first  formation  and  before  the  time 
of  Tertullian,  and  it  is  believed  by  Westcott  that  the  Mu- 
ratorian  Canon  also  contained  it,  though,  on  account  of 
its  mutilated  and  fragmentary  condition,  it  cannot  be  cer- 
tainly determined.  There  are  many  undoubted  instances 
of  correspondence  between  the  Epistle  of  Clement  of 
Eome  and  Hebrews,  says  Charteris  (p.  272),  and  he  cites 
also  correspondences  between  Hebrews  and  Polycarp, 
Justin  Martyr,  and  others  coming  later.  "  That  it  was 
probably  written  to  Alexandrian  Jews  may  have  retarded 
its  reception  in  the  Western  Church,  and  the  fact  that 
the  knowledge  of  its  authorship  was  lost  may  have  con- 
tributed to  the  same  result."  The  ancient  doubts  had 
reference  more  to  its  authorship  than  its  canonicity. 

The  Epistle  of  James. — ^The  Epistle  of  James  was  ac- 
cepted in  the  Eastern  Church  from  the  beginning,  as  is 
shown  by  its  place  in  the  Syriac  Version.  The  slowness 
with  which  it  was  received  in  the  Western  Church  is  prob- 
ably due  partly  to  the  fact  of  its  uncertain  authorehip,  as 
there  were  three  Jameses,  and  partly  to  the  impression  cur- 
rent in  all  ages  of  a  doctrinal  divergence  between  James 
and  Paul  on  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith.     It  is  well  known  that  Martin  Luther  rejected  it. 

The  Epistle  ofJude. — The  Epistle  of  Jude  is  found  in  the 
old  Latin  Version  and  is  expressly  named  in  the  Murato- 
rian  Canor^  but  it  is  wanting  in  the  Syriac  Version,  which 
may  be  due  to  the  same  cause  that  explains  the  absence  of 
the  Apocalypse  from  that  version  (see  page  182).  It  is  not 
quoted  by  Irenajus,  though  that  may  be  due  to  its  brevity 


THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  185 

and  is  no  proof  that  it  was  not  regarded  by  him  as  a  ca- 
nonical book. 

2  Peter. — The  earliest  quotation  of  2  Peter  is  that 
found  in  2  Clement.  Justin's  references  are  worthy  of 
notice,  and  so  are  those  of  Ireneeus.  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria commented  on  2  Peter  as  a  part  of  Scripture. 
In  estimating  the  evidence  for  the  canonicity  of  2 
Peter  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  there  is  between 
this  Epistle  and  that  of  Jude  a  most  remarkable  resem- 
blance, not  only  in  contents  and  meaning,  but  even  in 
minute  and  peculiar  forms  of  expression.*  This  would 
be  a  cause  of  suspicion  and  hesitancy.  On  the  natural 
assumption  that  but  one  could  be  canonical  and  the  other 
an  imitation,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  the  judgment  of  the 
Church  would  be  for  a  long  time  divided. 

2  and  3  John. — The  Second  and  Third  Epistles  of  John 
are  in  the  Latin  Version  of  the  second  century,  and  are 
probably  named  in  the  Muratorian  Canon.  Certainly  one 
of  them  is.  It  mentions  two  Epistles  of  John,  and  it  is  the 
opinion  of  Lightfoot  that  these  two  are  the  Second  and 
Third,  while  the  First  is  referred  to  in  another  part  of  the 
fragment.  Second  John  is  certainly  and  professedly  quot- 
ed by  Ircna3U8  (Bk.  I.,  16 :  3),  "'0  yap  Xiytuv  adrol^"  ^Tqa\ 
(^Iu)dvvQ(i)  "^ac'pstv,  xotvwvet  Tolq  epyon;  avTuiv  rolf  irovrjpotq" 
which  is  an  exact  quotation  of  2  John  11.  Compare  it. 
These  two  shorter  Epistles,  it  ought  to  be  said  also,  are 
so  perfectly  in  the  style  of  the  Gospel  and  First  Epistle 
of  John  that  it  is  impossible  for  even  an  untrained  and 

*See  Farrar'a  "|EarIy  Days  of  Christianity,"  pp.  110,  111. 


186  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

uncritical  reader  to  read  them  without  marking  and  re- 
marking the  similarity.  In  accounting  for  the  omission 
of  these  from  the  Syriac  Version  and  from  the  writings 
of  the  Fathers  it  is  to  be  remembered  they  are  extremely 
short,  very  personal  and  particular  in  form  and  design, 
and  both  half-anonymous.  And  indeed  it  is  true  of  all 
these  four  last-named  Epistles — Jude,  2  Peter,  2  and  3 
John — that  they  are  all  very  short,  and  therefore  furnish 
very  little  matter  for  quotation,  which  will  explain  the 
fewness  of  the  references  to  them  in  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers  of  the  second  century. 

Thus  we  can  give  a  reasonable  and  probable  account  of 
the  omission  of  some  of  these  seven  books,  the  antilegom- 
ena,  from  some  of  the  canons  and  Fathers  of  the  second 
century,  and  these  omissions  in  the  second  century  will 
account  for  their  being  questioned  in  later  times  and  will 
furnish,  in  particular,  a  sufficient  explanation  of  the  fact 
that  those  same  books  were  disputed  by  some  in  the  time 
of  Eusebius,  as  we  have  already  seen. 

Third  Period,  170-69  A.D. — It  remains  to  make  an 
examination  of  references  to  books  of  the  New  Testament 
to  be  found  in  authors  that  come  before  the  time  of  Irenajus 
— as  Justin  Martyr,  Ignatius,  Clement  of  Rome,  Polycarp, 
and  Barnabas,  from  each  of  whom  we  have  one  or  more 
writings.  But  the  limits  of  this  paper  will  not  allow  any 
such  examination  in  detail.  We  may  say,  however,  in  gen- 
eral, that  though  no  one  of  these  writers  has  a  list  of  the 
books  composing  the  New  Testament  and  no  one  of  them 
quotes  all  the  books  of  the  Now  Testament,  yet  they  all 


THE  CANON  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  187 

quote  one  or  more  books  of  the  New  Testament.  For  ex- 
ample, there  arc  many  coincidences  between  Justin  Mar- 
tyr and  each  of  our  four  Gospels,  as  well  as  some  incidental 
correspondences  with  Paul's  Epistles.*  There  are  twenty- 
nine  quotations  of  the  New  Testament  books  in  the  epistles 
of  Ignatius,  one  of  them  being  from  the  Apocalypse.  Be- 
sides these,  there  are  forty-three  similarities  of  tone  and 
thought,  which  Charteris  calls  "echoes,"  including  one 
from  the  Apocalypse  and  one  from  3  John.f  In  the  sin- 
gle extant  letter  of  Polycarp  there  are  thirty-five  quota- 
tions and  twenty-four  "  echoes."  One  of  the  "  echoes  " 
is  from  Jude,  one  from  James,  and  one  from  2  Peter, 
though  they  are  doubtful.J  In  the  epistle  of  Clement 
of  Rome  there  are  twenty  quotations  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment books  and  eleven  "  echoes,"  including  two  from 
James.g  In  the  epistle  of  Barnabas  there  are  twelve 
passages  that  coincide  in  substance  or  form  with  passages 
in  the  New  Testament,  most  of  them  with  passages  in 
the  Gospel  of  John.|| 

But  the  fact  that  we  find  no  more  references  in  these 
earlier  writers  to  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  is  not 
at  all  strange,  but  rather  what  was  to  be  expected.  Take 
the  Gospels,  for  example.  "  The  univei*sal  recognition  of 
the  four  Gospels  is  the  only  fact  which  can  explain  the 

*  Charteris,  "  Canonicity,"  Introduction,  pp.  61,  62. 
f/Wd.,  pp.  30-33. 
X  Ibid.,  pp.  39, 40. 
§  Ibid.,  pp.  22,  23. 
II /&«.,?.  7. 


188  DiSOtJSSlONS  IN  TBtEOLOGf. 

fragmentary  notices  of  them  and  references  to  them  m 
these  earlier  winters,"  If  there  has  been  any  questioning 
of  them  or  any  false  ones  challenging  equality  with  them,  as 
there  did  come  to  be  later,  in  the  time  of  Irerueus,  that  would 
have  occasioned  discussion,  as  it  did  in  the  tim£  of  Irenceus, 
and  so  we  should  find  more  frequent  and  explicit  mention  of 
them  in  these  earlier  writers,  as  we  do  find  in  Irenceus. 

As  Bishop  Lightfoot  says  in  his  admirable  articles  in 
the  Contemporary  Review,  Irenseus  is  the  first  extant 
wi*iter  in  whom,  from  the  nature  of  his  work,  we  have  a 
right  to  expect  explicit  information  on  the  subject  of  the 
canon.  Earlier  writings  which  have  been  preserved  are 
either  epistolary,  like  those  of  Ignatius  and  Polycarp, 
where  any  references  to  the  canonical  books  must  nec- 
essarily be  few  and  incidental;  or  devotional,  like  the 
Shepherd  of  Herraas,  which  is  equally  devoid  of  quota- 
tion from  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New ;  or  historical, 
like  the  account  of  the  martyi'doms  at  Vienne  and  Lyons, 
where  any  such  allusion  would  be  uncalled  for ;  or  apol- 
ogetic, like  the  great  mass  of  Christian  writings  of  the 
second  century,  in  which  the  reserve  of  the  writer  leads 
him  to  be  silent  about  authorities  that  would  be  of  no 
weight  with  his  heathen  or  Jewish  readers.  The  work 
of  Irenaeus  is  the  first  controversial  treatise  addressed  to 
Christians  on  the  subject  of  Christian  doctrine,  where 
the  appeal  is  naturally  to  Christian  documents.  And 
this  clear  and  positive  testimony  of  Irenseus,  giving  to  the 
New  Testament  Scriptures  an  authority  in  no  respect 
falling  short  of  the  estimate  of  the  Church  catholic  in  the 


THE  CANON  OP  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  189 

fourth  or  the  ninth  or  tho  nineteenth  century,  implies, 
besides,  as  its  historical  background,  a  New  Testament 
canon  virtually  complete,  as  it  was  some  time  afterward 
formally  so  pronounced  by  the  universal  Church  and  is 
still  so  received,  and  not  without  good  reasons  historical 
and  internal.* 

*  In  this  pajjer  the  inquiry  has  been  historical  only,  and  very 
incomplete  at  that.  No  comparison  as  to  contents  and  character 
has  been  made  between  the  New  Testament  writings  and  the 
other  writings  of  antiquity.  On  this  point  the  following  verdict 
of  a  great  scholar  is  just  and  moderate :  The  Epistle  of  Clement 
to  the  Corinthians  and  that  of  Polycarp  to  the  Philippians  come 
nearest  to  the  Epistles  of  Paul  and  John,  but  even  they  are  sepa- 
rated fix)m  them  by  a  very  great  distance.  Barnabas,  Ignatius, 
Hermas,  Papias,  Justin  Martyr  are  still  further  off,  and  bear  no 
eomparison  with  the  apostles  and  evangelists.  As  to  the  apocry- 
phal compared  with  the  canonical  Grospels,  the  difference  be- 
tween them  is  as  between  night  and  day. 

No  transition  in  the  history  of  the  Church  is  so  sudden,  ab- 
rupt, and  radical  as  that  from  the  apostolic  to  the  post-apostolic 
age.  God  himself  has  established  an  impassable  gulf  between  his 
own  life-giving  word  and  the  writings  of  mortal  men,  that  future 
ages  might  have  a  certain  guide  and  standard  in  finding  the  way 
of  salvation.  (Schaff's  "Companion  to  the  Greek  Testament," 
p.  81.) 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MINISTER  AS  A 
PREACHER. 


In  the  lectures  heretofore  delivered  to  the  class  in  Pas- 
toral Theology,  I  laid  down  successively,  and  endeavored 
to  maintain,  the  following  propositions:  1.  "Our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  has  himself  ordained  that  his  Church  shall 
have  in  all  times,  and  under  all  circumstances,  special 
men  appointed  to  the  superintendence  of  worship  and 
the  guidance  of  human  souls."  Or,  to  put  the  matter 
differently,  we  have  good  reason  to  assert  that  the  Chris- 
tian ministry,  as  a  distinct  and  permanent  institution, 
finds  its  warrant  and  justification  in  the  Scriptures  of  the 
New  Testament.  2.  This  ministry  is  not  to  be  looked 
upon  in  the  light  of  a  merely  human  profession,  which  a 
man  may  take  up  of  his  own  choice,  as  he  would  take  up 
merchandising  or  law  or  medicine;  but  is,  on  the  con- 
trary, to  be  regarded  as  a  divine  vocation,  upon  which  no 
man  should  enter  without  a  conscious  and  imperative  im- 
pulse from  the  Holy  Ghost.  3.  The  dignity  of  this  minis- 
try, which  is  indeed  very  great,  does  not  rest  upon  the 
supposition  of  its  being  a  sacrificing  and  mediating  priest- 
hood, a  thing  both  unnecessary  and  impossible  in  a  purely 
spiritual  religion ;  but  upon  the  twofold  fact  that  it  is  ap- 
pointed to  expound  and  proclaim  the  word  of  God,  and  to 
exercise  a  just  and  rational  pastoral  supervision  over  the 
Church. 


192  DISOUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

It  is  the  first  of  these  functions  concerning  which  I 
wish  now  to  speak.  To  be  brief,  my  theme  is:  The 
Christian  Minister  as  a  Preacher.  The  full  and  scientific 
treatment  of  this  theme  belongs,  of  course,  to  Homiletics, 
but  in  a  general  way,  and  for  the  pui"pose  of  emphasizing 
its  importance,  it  must  be  noticed  here.  There  is  abun- 
dant ground  for  affirming  that  preaching  is  the  minister's 
highest  work.  Let  us  present  in  the  outset  a  few  of  the 
facts  that  make  this  declaration  good. 

.  I.  Jesus  Christ  himself  was  a  preacher.  Soon  after  his 
baptism  he  opened  his  ministry  in  the  synagogue  at  Naza- 
reth by  quoting  and  applying  to  himself  this  passage  from 
Isaiah  Ixi.  1 :  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  God  is  upon  me,  be- 
cause he  hath  anointed  me  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the  poor; 
he  hath  sent  me  to  heal  the  broken-hearted,  to  preach  de- 
liverance to  the  captives,  and  the  recovering  of  sight  to  the 
blind,  to  set  at  liberty  them  that  are  bruised,  to  preach  the 
acceptable  year  of  the  Lord."  In  the  course  of  three  years 
he  delivered  numerous  lengthy  discourses :  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount ;  the  sermon  to  Nicodemus ;  the  sermon  to 
the  Samaritan  woman ;  the  farewell  sermon  of  the  last 
Passover.  In  addition  to  these,  much  of  his  time  was 
taken  up  with  mere  informal  religious  teaching,  the  ut- 
terance of  those  brief  but  pregnant  sayings  that  fell  from 
his  lips  as  occasion  called  them  forth.  His  preaching  ar- 
rested attention,  and  fixed  itself  in  the  memory  of  his 
hearers.  There  was  nothing  about  it  that  excited  so  much 
remark  as  this,  that "  he  taught  them  as  one  having  au- 
thority, and  not  as  the  scribes."    He  was  no  mere  com- 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MINISTER  AS  A  PREACHER.  193 

nientator,  repeating  by  rote  the  dull  platitudes  that  had 
been  so  often  repeated  before  him,  but  an  original,  com- 
manding, and  inspiring  Teacher,  with  a  message  of  his 
own  for  the  world ;  not  an  echo,  but  a  clear,  fresh,  living 
voice.  He  did  not  begin  and  end  with,  "  Eabbi  So-and-so 
said  so-and-so,"  but  rather  with  an  authoritative,  "  I  say 
unto  you."  Even  toward  the  law  of  Moses,  as  one  has 
well  said,  he  took  up  "  a  lofty  critical  and  revisionary  at- 
titude.'' There  was  never  the  slightest  wavering,  hesita- 
tion, or  indecision  in  his  words.  He  went  forward  straight 
as  an  arrow  to  its  mark,  turning  aside  neither  to  the 
right  hand  nor  to  the  left.  Priest  and  King  ho  was,  but 
none  the  less  a  Prophet. 

II.  The  great  commission  which  Jesus  gave  to  his  apostles 
indicates  not  merely  the  extent  to  which  he  wished  them  to  pro- 
ceed in  the  propagation  of  the  truth,  hut  also  the  method  accord- 
ing to  which  fie  wished  them  to  accomplish  that  work :  "  Go  ye 
into  all  the  world,  &xi&  preach  thegospd  to  every  creature." 
In  spite,  however,  of  a  deliverance  so  explicit,  two  widely 
differing  theories  of  propagandism  prevail  among  Chris- 
tian people.  The  first  of  these,  for  lack  of  a  term  more  ac- 
curately descriptive,  may  be  called  the  sacramental  theory. 
It  is  held  in  a  modified  form  by  High-church  Episcopalians 
and  some  other  sects;  but  is  found  in  its  fVillness  only 
among  the  Eoman  Catholics.  It  is,  of  course,  correlated 
with  the  doctrine  of  one  univereal,  visible  Church,  outside 
of  which  there  is  no  hope  of  salvation,  and  with  the  other 
doctrine  of  a  mediating  priesthood,  which,  by  virtue  of 
its  position  in  that  Church,  holds  the  keys  of  the  king- 
13 


194  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

dom  of  heaven.  It  puts  the  sacramentB  in  the  forefront. 
It  is  sensuous,  sentimental,  sesthetic;  it  appeals  princi- 
pally to  the  faculties  of  taste  and  imagination,  and  only 
in  a  subordinate  way  to  the  intelligence  and  the  con- 
science. It  minifies  the  sermon  and  magnifies  the  serv- 
ice. Ritualism  is  its  joy  and  glory.  It  requires  of  its 
ministers,  not  breadth  and  strength  of  brain,  nor  thor- 
oughness and  richness  of  culture,  nor  power  of  persuasive 
speech,  but  close  attention  to  the  rubrics  at  all  seasons  of 
religious  worship,  and  special  decency  of  behavior  at 
weddings  and  funerals.  It  calls  to  its  aid  all  the  fine 
arts:  architecture,  sculpture,  painting,  music,  and  man- 
millinery.  It  builds  Gothic  cathedrals,  and  adorns  them 
with  the  best  productions  of  the  chisel  and  the  brush. 
It  uses  pipe  organs  and  quartet  choirs,  not  that  the 
simple  folks  may  be  led  to  "  make  melody  in  theii*  hearts 
to  the  Lord,"  but  that  the  senses  of  the  cultivated  few 
be  regaled  with  "  the  concord  of  sweet  sounds."  It  keeps 
on  hand  an  elaborate  ecclesiastical  wardrobe,  so  that  the 
make-believe  priests  who  serve  at  its  altars  may  be  dif- 
ferent as  much  as  possible  in  appearance  from  their 
brother  men  who  plow  the  fields  or  throng  the  mai-ts  of 
trade.  The  odors  of  a  musty  medievalism  cling  to  it, 
and  it  seems  utterly  out  of  place  in  the  open  daylight  of 
the  nineteenth  century. 

The  other  theory,  and  the  true  one,  is  the  preaching 
theory.  It  insists  that  the  Christian  minister  is  not  to  be 
a  mere  dumb  servitor  at  the  altar,  following  the  fashion 
of  a  pagan  priest,  and  taking  a  listless  and  perfunctory 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MINISTER  AS  A  PREACHER.  195 

part  in  a  more  or  less  empty  ritual.  Such  a  work  as 
that  would  make  no  high  demand  upon  his  head,  no  su- 
preme draft  upon  his  heart.  A  greater  trust  is  commit- 
ted to  him.  He  is  appointed  to  be  the  bearer  of  a  mes- 
sage, the  teacher  and  dispenser  of  an  intelligible  system 
of  religious  truth.  This  message  he  must  understand, 
not  giving  it  out  in  an  unconscious  and  mechanical  fash- 
ion like  a  phonograph,  nor  repeating  it  by  rote  like  a 
parrot,  but  delivering  it  to  the  world  ex  corde,  out  of  his 
very  heart.  This  truth  he  must  grasp,  both  in  its  wider 
and  more  abstract  reaches,  and  in  its  narrower  and  more 
concrete  details.  Nay,  a  mere  intellectual  apprehension 
of  it,  however  clear  and  penetrating,  will  not  suflSce  him 
for  the  effective  discharge  of  his  task.  Somehow  or  oth- 
er he  must  get  the  truth  incorporated  into  his  spirit, 
woven  into  all  the  texture  of  his  character,  so  that  his 
speaking  of  it  may  be  as  if  he  were  yielding  up  the  im- 
palpable flame  and  essence  of  his  own  life.  To  him  also 
is  addressed  the  charge  of  Paul  to  Timothy:  "Preach 
the  word ;  be  instant  in  season,  out  of  season ;  reprove, 
rebuke,  exhort  with  all  long-suflfering  and  doctrine." 

The  philosophy  of  the  whole  matter  is  finely  expressed 
in  Eomans  x,  13, 14 :  "  For  whosoever  shall  call  upon  the 
name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved.  How  then  shall  they 
call  on  him  in  whom  they  have  not  believed  ?  and  how 
shall  they  believe  in  him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard  ? 
and  how  shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher?"  The 
practice  of  all  the  apostles,  moreover,  was  in  strict  ac- 
cordance vnth  the  teaching  of  this  passage.    St.  Peter 


196  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOQT. 

opened  the  now  dispensation  of  the  Spirit  on  the  Day  of 
Pentecost  with  a  sermon  that  had  in  it  all  the  elements 
of  exposition,  application,  and  exhortation — a  sermon 
that  cut  like  a  sword  and  burned  like  fire.  St.  Paul 
said  of  himself  (1  Cor.  i.  17) :  "  For  Christ  sent  me  not 
to  baptize  " — not  to  make  baptism,  nor  the  performance 
of  any  other  visible  rite,  the  business  and  object  of  his 
ministry — "  but  to  preach  the  gospel."  So  small  a  rela- 
tive importance  did  he  attach  to  baptism  and  other  such 
things  that  he  also  said  in  the  same  connection :  "  I  thank 
God  that  I  baptized  none  of  you,  but  Crispus  and  Gains ; 
lest  any  should  say  that  I  baptized  in  my  own  name. 
And  I  baptized  also  the  household  of  Stephanas :  besides, 
I  know  not  whether  I  baptized  any  other."  Imagine  a 
man  with  such  a  moral  earnestness  as  this  befooling 
himself  with  vestments  and  wax  candles  and  incense  and 
processions  and  bowings !  The  thing  is  impossible.  But 
wherever  he  went  he  left  the  memory  of  his  sermons ; 
and  this,  too,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  his  enemies  de- 
clared his  "bodily  presence"  to  be  "weak"  and  "his 
speech  contemptible."  "From  Jerusalem  and  round 
about  unto  Illyricum,"  in  a  wide-sweeping  circle,  he 
"  fully  preached  the  gospel  of  Christ."  In  Jewish  syna- 
gogues, in  the  open  streets  of  heathen  cities,  in  the  phil- 
osophical school  of  Tyrannus  at  Ephesus,  in  the  upper 
chamber  at  Troas,  on  the  summit  of  Mars'  Hill  at  Athens, 
on  the  sandy  sea-shore  at  Miletus,  he  "  opened  his  mouth 
boldly,  to  make  known  the  mystery  of  the  gospel." 
III.  It  must  be  added  that  every  subsequent  age  of  great 


THE  CHEIStlAN  MINISTER  AS  A  PREACHER.  197 

religious  activity,  every  age  of  revival  and  reform,  Tms  been 
marked  as  a  period  of  preaching.  Not  to  go  into  wearisome 
minuteness  of  detail,  I  will  call  your  attention  to  only  a 
few  examples  of  this  fact. 

In  the  thirteenth  century  preaching  had  fallen  into 
disuse.  As  h.  matter  of  theory,  it  was  the  special  work 
of  the  bishops.  But  the  bishops  had  other  tasks  to 
look  after.  They  were  busy  with  war  or  diplomacy  or 
the  management  of  the  vast  estates  which  a  prodigal 
liberality  had  bestowed  upon  the  Church.  In  many  in- 
stances they  were  engrossed  with  pleasure,  and  wallow- 
ing in  the  mire  of  a  godless  licentiousness.  The  number 
of  them  who  had  either  the  capacity  or  the  disposition 
to  occupy  the  pulpits  of  even  their  cathedral  churches 
was  not  great ;  and  in  the  rest  of  their  dioceses  "  their 
presence  was  but  occasional,  a  progress,  or  a  visitation 
of  pomp  and  form  rather  than  of  popular  instruction." 
Dean  Milman  says :  "  The  only  general  teaching  of  the 
people  was  through  the  Eitual.  But  the  splendid  Eitu- 
al,  admirably  as  it  was  constituted  by  its  words  and  sym- 
bols to  impress  the  leading  truths  of  Christianity  upon 
the  more  intelligent,  and  in  a  vaguer  way  upon  the  more 
rude  and  uneducated,  could  be  administered,  and  was  ad- 
ministered, by  a  priesthood  almost  entirely  ignorant,  but 
which  had  just  learned  mechanically,  not  without  decen- 
cy, perhaps  not  without  devotion,  to  go  through  the 
stated  observances."  * 

The  Church  was  in  grave  danger  of  losing  its  hold 

*«  History  of  Latin  Christianity,"  Book  X.,  Chap.  IX. 


IDS  ftlSCirsSlONS  IN  THEOLOQt. 

upon  the  popular  mind  of  Europe ;  for  there  was  at  this 
time  a  wide  and  profound  intellectual  quickening  in  all 
classes.  To  the  great  universities  scholars  of  all  degrees 
flocked  by  the  thousand,  and  outside  of  the  universities 
there  were  manifest  signs  of  a  new  life.  What  was  the 
Church  to  do  in  order  to  meet  this  emergency  ?  The  her- 
etics were  moving.  In  the  south  of  France  Peter  Wal- 
do was  sending  out  his  itinerant  preachers  to  proclaim 
an  almost  Protestant  version  of  the  gospel.  If  Eome 
was  to  maintain  her  hold,  she  must  bestir  herself.  "  Just 
at  this  moment,"  again  says  Milman,  "  there  arose  two 
men  wonderfully  adapted  to  arrest  and  avert  the  danger 
which  threatened  the  whole  hierarchical  system — St. 
Dominic  and  St.  Francis,  the  founders  of  the  Friar 
Preachers.  By  them  Christendom  was  at  once  over- 
spread by  a  host  of  zealous,  active,  devoted  men,  whose 
function  was  popular  instruction.  In  a  few  years,  from 
the  Sierras  of  Spain  to  the  steppes  of  Eussia,  from  the 
Tiber  to  the  Thames,  the  Trent,  the  Baltic  Sea,  the  old 
faith,  in  all  its  fullest,  medieval,  imaginative,  inflexible 
rigor,  was  preached  in  almost  every  town  and  hamlet." 
By  such  means  the  Medieval  Church  recovered  the 
ground  that  it  had  almost  lost;  and  not  only  so,  but 
won  new  conquests,  and  made  for  itself  a  widened  do- 
main. 

In  the  same  connection,  we  must  not  omit  to  mention 
the  Protestant  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Mar- 
tin Luther  knew  the  value  of  the  pen  and  of  the  picture. 
The  newly  invented  printing-press  was  a  good  angel  to 


l-HE  CflRISTlAU  MINISTBR  AS  A  PREACHER.  19^ 

him.  He  kept  it  moving  day  and  night  to  turn  off  a  suf- 
ficient supply  of  his  almost  numberless  books  and  tracts ; 
and,  in  company  with  his  artist  friend,  Lucas  Cranach, 
he  actually  flooded  Germany  with  his  pictorial  caricatures 
of  the  pope  and  the  papacy.  But  he  also  made  the 
walls  of  the  great  Wittenberg  Church  ring  with  his  ser- 
mons, and  besides  found  time  for  frequent  preaching 
tears  throughout  Germany.  There  was  one  occasion 
when,  speaking  after  the  manner  of  men,  he  actually 
saved  the  Eeformation  by  his  sermons.  During  his 
year's  voluntary  confinement  in  the  castle  of  Wartburg 
the  so-called  "  prophets  of  Zwickau  "  came  to  Wittenberg, 
and  made  a  great  stir.  By  their  revolutionary  views  they 
carried  off  even  Professor  Carlstadt,  one  of  Luther's  col- 
leagues, who  at  once  sought  to  introduce  the  most  radi- 
cal and  untimely  measures.  Luther  heard  of  it,  and 
could  not  be  held  in  check.  Though  warned  that  he 
could  come  out  of  the  place  of  his  concealment  only  at 
the  risk  of  his  life,  he  dared  every  thing,  flew  to  Witten- 
berg, and  for  eight  consecutive  days  and  nights  lifted  up 
his  voice  from  the  pulpit  against  the  folly  which  seemed 
about  to  wreck  the  fair  prospects  of  ecclesiastical  reform. 
Only  by  such  superhuman  efforts  was  the  plague  staid. 

The  following  quotation  from  John  Ker  ("  History  of 
Preaching,"  p.  150)  will  be  read  with  pleasure :  "  It  is  re- 
markable that  Lutlier  was  at  first  unwilling  to  pi*each. 
Like  Moses,  he  did  not  recognize  his  work.  Ho  distiiist- 
ed  himself,  or  he  had  not  yet  the  impelling  fire  of  Jere- 
miah and  Paul.     It  was  at  the  command  of  his  superior, 


^00  DisotrssioUs  IN  o^heologV. 

under  the  vow  of  obedience,  that  he  first  preached  in  the 
refectory  or  dining-room  of  the  cloister  at  Erfurt,  and 
afterward  in  the  little  cloister  church  at  Wittenberg. 
But  when  he  once  began  the  spirit  of  preaching  grew 
upon  him,  and  he  agreed  to  preach  in  the  town  church 
of  Wittenberg,  which  afterwar(r  became  so  famous,  and 
in  which  he  lies  buried  side  by  side  with  Melanchthon. 
.  .  .  By  and  by  came  his  breach  with  the  papal  system 
through  his  opposition  to  indulgences,  and  this  led  him 
to  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel,  and  to  the  central  truth 
of  his  preaching — -justification  by  faith.  He  now  found 
firm  footing,  and  his  preaching  gained  a  power  which 
roused  all  Germany  and  shook  the  souls  of  men.  There 
had  been  nothing  like  it  since  the  Day  of  Pentecost.  On 
his  way  to  Worms,  to  meet  the  Diet,  he  could  not  escape 
from  the  crowds.  At  Erfurt  where  he  had  commenced 
in  the  little  refectory,  the  great  church  was  so  crowded 
that  they  feared  it  would  fall.  At  Zwickau  the  market- 
place was  thronged  by  25,000  eager  listeners,  and  Luther 
had  to  preach  to  them  from  the  window.  .  .  .  Luther 
had  always  pressing  work — ^the  care  of  the  Church  and 
all  the  controversies,  the  training  of  preachers,  translat- 
ing the  Bible,  writing  pamphlets  and  volumes,  giving 
counsel  to  princes  and  people;  but  nothing  could  keep 
him  from  preaching,  at  home  and  wherever  he  went,  on 
Sabbath-days  and  during  the  week.  He  continued  to 
preach  all  his  life  long,  though  broken  in  health,  and  so 
enfeebled  that  he  often  fainted  from  exhaustion.  But  to 
the  end  he  retained  his  wonderful  power.    The  last  time 


THE  CHRIS*riAN  MINISTER  AS  A  PREACHER.  20l 

he  ascended  the  pulpit  was  in  February,  1546,  a  few  days 
before  he  died." 

What  has  just  been  said  of  Luther  may  be  said,  with 
some  modification,  of  almost  all  the  other  leaders  of  the 
Reformation,  John  Calvin  was  to  Geneva  what  Luther 
was  to  Wittenberg.  No  man  ever  led  a  busier  life.  He 
was  practically  the  head  of  the  civil  government  of  the 
city ;  he  lectured  constantly  to  his  hundreds  of  students ; 
he  conducted  an  extensive  correspondence  with  the  great 
men  of  the  Protestants  throughout  all  Europe ;  he  was 
virtually  the  leader  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  France ; 
he  wrote  commentaries,  histories,  etc. ;  and  yet  it  was 
long  his  custom  to  preach  on  every  day  of  alternate 
weeks.  Time  would  fail  me  were  I  to  tell  of  Zwingle, 
of  John  Knox,  of  Hugh  Latimer,  and  of  the  other  nota- 
ble preachers  of  the  Reformation,  who  shine  like  stars 
through  the  mists  of  time. 

It  is  hardly  necessary,  moreover,  to  refer  to  John  Wes- 
ley and  the  great  revival  of  the  last  century.  There  is, 
however,  one  erroneous  opinion  concerning  Wesley  which 
ought  to  be  corrected.  It  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that 
he  had  consummate  genius  for  organization ;  and  this  fact 
has  overshadowed  his  fame  as  a  surpassingly  great  pul- 
pit orator.  It  is  a  common  belief  that  in  this  respect  he 
was  far  inferior  to  Whitefield.  But  there  was  never  a 
gi'eater  mistake.  The  immediate  effects  that  followed 
his  field  preaching  wore  beyond  any  phenomena  that 
were  produced  by  Whitefield's  ministrations.  For  a  sub- 
stantial confirmation  of  this  statement,  the  reader  is  re- 


202  DiSCTTSSiONS  IN  THEOLOGY, 

ferred  to  Dr.  John  H.  Rigg's  interesting  and  instructive 
little  book  entitled  "  The  Living  Wesley."  In  the  course 
of  his  life  he  preached  more  than  40,000  sermons.  The 
men  who  were  his  associates  and  successors  caught  the 
contagion  of  his  spirit.  It  was  this  chiefly  that  gave 
them  such  success  as  they  achieved  in  the  world.  Pas- 
tors they  were  not,  and,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the 
term,  could  not  be.  To  this  day,  the  official  designation 
of  a  Methodist  minister  is  not  pastor,  but  preacher  in 
charge. 

We  are  sometimes  told  nowadays  that  preaching,  as  a 
chief  means  of  instructing  and  moving  men,  has  had  its 
day,  and  must  fall  back  into  a  lower  place ;  that  in  pro- 
portion as  men  become  more  cultivated  they  eschew  the 
exciting  methods  of  the  pulpit,  and  prefer  the  more 
placid  and  quiet  culture  that  comes  from  books ;  and  that 
the  Church  ought  to  re-adjust  her  plans  to  suit  this  al- 
leged fact.  All  such  talk  is  empty  and  idle ;  or,  at  least, 
the  only  truth  in  it  is  this :  that  the  general  increase  of 
intelligence  makes  the  task  of  the  pulpit  one  of  increas- 
ing care  and  difficulty.  Yet  the  day  will  never  dawn 
when  preaching,  in  the  sense  of  expounding  and  enforc- 
ing the  word  of  God,  will  not  be  the  mightiest  of  all  in- 
strumentalities for  converting  men  from  sin  and  building 
them  up  in  the  faith  of  the  gospel.  Other  things — as,  for 
example,  the  religious  press — may  be  brought  into  co-oper- 
ation with  it ;  but  none  of  them  can  take  its  place.  There 
is  a  power  and  a  vitality  in  spoken  truth  that  can  never  be 
transferred  to  the  printed  page.    Edward  Irving  declared 


TfiE  OHRISTIAN  MINISTER  AS  A  PREACHER.  203 

that  the  pulpit  was  "the  ancient  throne  of  power"  in 
the  British  realm.  To  make  it  such  in  every  realm  is 
the  manifest  duty  of  the  Christian  ministry. 

No  other  accomplishment  in  a  minister  can  compensate 
for  the  lack  of  preaching  ability.  It  is  far  more  important 
to  be  like  ApoUos,  "  mighty  in  the  Scriptures,"  than  to  be 
able  to  manipulate  a  Church  fair,  or  organize  a  reading- 
club,  or  engineer  a  "  praise  service,"  or  shine  in  literary 
circles.  It  is  the  bounden  duty  of  every  one  that  is  called 
of  God  to  try  to  be  not  only  a  good  preacher,  but  the  best 
possible  preacher.  The  mere  desire  to  appear  well  before 
men,  to  win  popular  applause,  to  reach  a  high  place  in 
the  Church,  is,  of  course,  all  wrong ;  but  even  this  is  not 
much  worse  than  the  contemptible  laziness  which  puts 
on  airs  of  humility,  and  converts  its  indifference  to  duty 
and  its  neglect  of  manifest  obligations  into  a  Christian 
virtue.  And,  moreover,  it  is  not  to  glorify  ourselves,  but 
to  glorify  Christ,  not  to  promote  our  own  ends  and  aims, 
but  to  do  good  to  our  fellow-men,  that  we  should  culti- 
vate to  the  utmost  limit  the  gift  of  luminous  and  orderly 
thought,  and  of  convincing,  impassioned,  and  moving 
speech. 

Let  us  hope  that  the  history  of  the  pulpit  which  is  yet 
to  be  written  will  be  even  more  glorious  than  that  which 
has  already  gone  to  record.  With  such  themes  as  the 
Bible  aflFords,  and  such  opportunities  for  unfolding  and 
declaring  them  as  we  now  have,  we  ought  to  begin  a  new 
epoch.  The  ideal  preacher  has  not  yet  appeared.  Some- 
where in  the  future  he  will  make  his  advent,  and  do  his 


204  DISCUSSIONS  In  TttEOLOGY. 

work.  The  world  will  hail  him  when  he  comes.  He 
will  be  as  full  of  faith  as  Abi*aham,  as  courageous  as  Eli- 
jah, as  lofty  as  Isaiah,  as  ardent  as  Peter,  as  gentle  as 
John,  and  as  wide-minded  as  Paul.  Learned  in  all  the 
learning  of  the  schools,  but  modest  as  a  woman  ;  trained 
in  the  art  of  oratory,  yet  simple  and  unaffected  in  his  ut- 
terance as  a  child;  equipped  with  all  human  resources, 
but  relying  solely  on  the  power  of  God ;  living  himself  a 
life  of  the  loftiest  and  most  stainless  piety,  and  at  the 
same  time  moved  with  the  tenderest  compassion  for  the 
faults  and  the  follies  of  his  fellow-men ;  an  absolute 
Christian,  and  a  real  man ;  God's  message-bearer,  God's 
prophet — ^when  shall  he  come  ? 


THE  FAITH  OF  THE  ANTEDILU- 
VIAN PATRIARCHS, 
Accordingtothe  Hebrew  Narrative  in  Genesis. 


LECTURE  II. 

The  faiths  presented  hereafter  will  be  those  which 
were  learned  anew  under  other  conditions,  or  else  faiths 
newborn.  There  are  three.  Of  the  first,  Abel  furnishes 
the  historical  illustration ;  of  the  second,  Cain  and  La- 
mech ;  of  the  third,  Enoch  and  Noah. 

Fifth  Faith. — The  just  Jehovah  God  accepts  offering 
only  as  it  mirrora  the  well-doing  of  the  offerer. 

And  it  came  to  pass,  that  Cain  brought  of  the  fruit  of  the 
ground  an  oflfering  unto  Jehovah.  And  Abel,  he  also  brought  of 
the  firstlings  of  the  flock  and  of  the  fat  thereof.  And  Jehovah 
had  respect  unto  Abel  and  to  his  oflfering ;  but  unto  Cain  and 
his  off"ering  he  had  not  respect. 

And  Cain  was  very  wroth  and  his  countenance  fell.  And  Je- 
hovah said  unto  him : 

"Why  art  thou  wroth, 

And  why  is  thy  countenance  fallen  ? 

If  thou  doest  well," 

Shalt  thou  not  be  acct'iited  ? 

And  if  thou  doest  not  well, 

Sin  lieth  at  tlie  door. 

And  for  thee  shall  be  his  desire, 

But  thou  mayest  rule  over  him." 

Man  knew  that  every  offering  unto  Jehovah  must  bo 


206  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

choice.  Selection  must  enter  into  each  oflfering.  Hence 
he  chose,  if  a  tiller  of  the  ground,  to  oifer  its  first  fruits ; 
if  a  keeper  of  the  flock,  to  offer  its  firstlings.  Man's 
daily  employment  should  yield  his  gifts  to  Jehayah. 
Man  should  select  from  its  products  offerings  for  Jeho- 
vah. Such  are  just  inferences  from  the  narrative.  Yet 
in  this  respect  man  might  obey  the  law  of  offering, 
and  remain  unpossessed  of  Jehovah's  favor.  Both  Cain 
and  Abel  brought  to  Jehovah  the  offering  which  had  out- 
ward conformity  to  the  law  respecting  the  nature  of  of- 
fering. Nevertheless,  "  Jehovah  looked  kindly  upon  Abel 
and  his  offering ;  but  upon  Cain  and  his  offering  ho  looked 
not  kindly."  In  the  narrative  the  person  is  placed  before 
the  offering.  Ever  is  this  true.  When  Jehovah  "  looks 
kindly  "  on  a  person,  the  offering  of  such  a  person  must  be 
acceptable.  Also  it  is  a  corollary  that  such  a  person  will 
conform  to  law  as  respects  the  choice  quality  of  the  of- 
fering. 

"  Cain  was  very  wroth."  He  knew  there  was  a  differ- 
ence in  character  between  him  and  Abel,  also  between  the 
way  Jehovah  regarded  his  offering  and  the  offering  of 
Abel.  This  knowledge  angered  him  greatly.  Then  we 
are  told  that  Jehovah  came  to  Cain  and  spoke  to  him 
when  he  was  wroth.  This  is  in  accordance  with  the 
nature  of  Jehovah.  Ever  he  comes  to  man  with  help 
ing  words  in  the  time  of  crisis.  Cain  was  in  peril. 
He  cherished  a  feeling  as  destructive  to  human  life  as 
that  "  enmity  "  which  was  in  the  spirit  of  the  serpent. 
This  wrath  of  Cain,  unless  laid  aside,  must  result  in 


THE  FAITH  OF  THE  ANTEDILUVIAN  PATRIARCHS.      207 

murder.  His  wrath  arose  because  Jehovah  "regarded 
not  his  offering."  This  same  Jehovah  comes  lovingly  to 
Cain  and  reveals  the  reason  for  the  unacceptableness  of 
himself,  and  so  of  his  offering.  "  If  thou  docst  well,  shalt 
thou  not  be  accepted  ?  "  The  question  is  grounded  on  a 
fundamental  religious  axiom.  "Well-doing"  makes  the 
door  acceptable  to  God.  The  human  heart  believes  this 
truth.  But  one  answer  could  be  returned.  It  is.  Yes. 
Faith  is  over  on  the  side  of  well-doing.  Actions  which 
are  not  well  done  in  the  sight  of  Jehovah  have  sin  at  their 
core.     "  If  thou  doest  not  well,  sin  lieth  at  the  door." 

The  remainder  of  the  words  of  Jehovah  is  but  the 
manifestation  of  his  love.  "And  unto  thee  is  its  desire, 
but  thou  mayest  rule  over  it."  Sin  is  poreonified  in  the 
passage.  The  ever-alertness  of  sin  to  seize  him  who 
opens  the  door,  if  at  that  door  sin  is  lying  in  wait,  becomes 
portrayed  in  these  words.  There  is  warning  as  to  the 
fell  purpose  of  sin,  yet  the  words  of  Jehovah  come  with 
promise:  "But  thou  mayest  rule  over  it."  Here  is  a 
repetition  of  the  Protoevangelium,  of  the  first  gospel : 
"It  shall  wound  thy  heel,  but  thou  shalt  wound  its 
head."  Cain  has  here  a  promise  that  with  him  was  the 
advantage.  He  might  rule  over  sin.  There  was  no  pow- 
er in  sin  to  rule  over  him,  unless  he  so  chose. 

The  second  view  given  of  Cain  is  awful.  He  becomes 
the  murderer  of  his  brother.  This  act  was  the  culmina- 
tion of  that  wrong-doing  which  had  made  his  offering 
imacceptablo.  The  fact  of  murder  is  simply  stated.  No 
qomment  is  made  upon  it  to  enforce  its  awful  character, 


208  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

The  third  view  has  as  its  background  not  an  unac- 
cepted offering,  but  a  murder.  Jehovah  again  converses 
with  Cain.  The  question  of  Jehovah  is :  "  Where  is  Abel, 
thy  brother?"  Here  is  chance  for  confession.  But 
the  wicked  Cain  replies :  "Am  I  my  brother's  keeper  ?  " 
Contrast  this  response  with  the  ingenuous  confession  of 
both  Adam  and  Eve.  Cain's  reply  is  tantamount  to  a  de- 
nial of  the  whereabouts  of  Abel.  Jehovah  convicts  him 
by  the  words :  "  The  voice  of  thy  brother's  blood  crieth 
from  the  ground  unto  me." 

Jehovah  again  pronounces  a  curse.  The  first  curse 
pronounced  by  Jehovah  was  upon  the  serpent.  There 
was  no  mitigating  circumstance  to  modify  the  hellish 
pui-pose  which  prompted  him  to  deceive  the  woman. 
Hence  Jehovah  pronounces  a  curse  without  mitigation 
upon  him.  Adam  sinned  in  that  he  hearkened,  under  a 
motive  worthy  of  respect,  to  the  voice  of  the  woman  rather 
than  to  the  voice  of  Jehovah.  Still  he  showed  in  dis- 
obedience the  evidence  of  a  nobility  of  spirit,  which  must 
have  commended  him  somewhat  to  Jehovah.  Hence  no 
curse  was  pronounced  on  him,  but  on  the  ground.  The 
third  curse  was  pronounced  on  Cain.  His  denial  of  his 
deed  placed  him  in  the  same  defiant  attitude  as  that  of 
the  serpent.  Hence  a  curse  is  pronounced  on  him.  The 
essentially  new  element  in  this  curse  is  that  Cain  should 
be  a  fugitive  and  a  wanderer  in  the  earth.  It  was  this 
new  element  which  forced  the  heart-despaii'ing  cry  from 
Cain.  This  cry  phrased  itself  in  the  words :  "  My  pun- 
ishment is  greater  than  I  can  bear."    The  sorrow  in  this 


THE  FAITH  OF  THE  ANTEDILUVIAN  PATEIAROHS.   209 

utterance  is  deepest.     It  is  expanded  by  Cain,  thus  show- 
ing he  understood  its  import.     He  beheld  himself  a 
wanderer  and  a  fugitive,  and  such  a  one  as  each  would 
wish  to  kill ;  also  he  would  be  hidden  from  the  face  of 
Jehovah.     Here  was  punishment  above  bearing.     Shut 
out  from  earth,  from  man,  from  Jehovah.     If  Jehovah 
heard  the  first  cry  of  the  human  heart  as  it  was  forced  out 
by  the  consciousness  that  awful  loss  had  ensued  through  a 
deed  whose  motive  power  was  rooted  in  the  wish  to  be 
like  God,  it  is  no  surprise  to  learn  that  Jehovah  again 
hoars  the  cry  of  the  human  heart,  as  it  proceeds  from 
Cain  when  he  faces  the  awful  consequence  of  his  wicked 
deed,  although  it  was  due  to  the  wickedness  of  his 
evil  heart.     Jehovah  hears  the   cry  of  agony  which 
Cain  utters.    He  does  not  remove  the  penalty.     Com- 
plete vengeance  was  taken  on  Cain.    He  must  be  a  wan- 
derer and  a  fugitive.    His  deed  was  such  that  he  could 
not  dwell  among  men.     To  murder  a  man  was  to  place  a 
barrier  between  the  murderer  and  other  men,  so  that  they 
might  not  dwell  together.    But  Jehovah  did  pity  Cain. 
What  this  murderer  mostly  feared  was  the  vengeance 
unto  death,  which  every  man  would  take  upon  him,  and 
the  banishment  from  God.    This  thought  rendered  his 
punishment  greater  than  he  could  bear.    When  Cain  re- 
alized that  his  wicked  deed  made  him  an  object  of  dread 
to  mankind,  made  him  fit  only  to  be  killed,  and  also 
thrust  him  out  from  Jehovah's  presence,  he  came  near 
drinking  the  cup  of  repentance ;  and  when  sin  makes  us 
conscious  of  our  worthlessness,  and  leads  us  to  tell  it  to 
14 


210  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

Johovah,  we  may  expect  some  promise  from  him.  To 
Cain  help  came,  a  promise :  "  Therefore  whoever  slayeth 
Cain  vengeance  shall  be  taken  on  him  seven-fold."  The 
sign  placed  upon  him  was  protection  from  mankind,  and 
also  evidence  that  Jehovah  had  shown  him  mercy. 

This  Fifth  Faith  is  related  to  Adam,  Eve,  and  Cain  alike, 
in  so  far  as  they  were  doers  of  wrong.  Punishment  was 
meted  out  to  each.  Hence  Jehovah  declared  his  justice. 
Also  when  repentance  was  found  in  each,  promise  was 
given  to  them.  Adam  and  Eve  had  the  promise  that 
they  should  be  superior,  stronger  than  the  serpent. 
Cain,  although  his  evil  conduct  led  him  to  be  unaccept- 
able to  Jehovah,  yet  Jehovah,  while  declaring  that  he 
had  done  evil  and  sin  was  at  the  door,  repeated  also  the 
first  promise,  that  Cain  might  rule  over  sin.  Cain,  how- 
ever, increased  in  wickedness,  which  culminated  in  mur- 
der. Jehovah  metes  out  punishment  for  this  wrong-do- 
ing ;  but,  when  the  heart  of  Cain  fails  him,  and  he  says : 
"  My  punishment  is  greater  than  I  can  bear,"  then  Je- 
hovah gives  him  promise.  Thus  early  we  are  taught  that 
a  heart-cry  unto  Jehovah  is  over  heard,  and  that  the  an- 
swer is  always  promise. 

Lamech  is  the  second  murderer ;  at  least  ho  is  the  sec- 
ond murderer  recorded  in  revelation.  The  crime  of  Cain 
is  given  with  some  detail.  Step  by  step  we  can  trace  the 
approach  to  the  awful  deed.  But  otherwise  is  it  with 
Lamech.  We  know  not  whom  ho  murdered.  We  know 
simply  that  their  number  was  two,  that  they  were  a  man 
and  a  boy.    As  little  also  is  given  us  respecting  the  in- 


THE  FAITH  OP  THE  ANTEDILUVIAN  PATRIARCHS.      211 

centivo  to  the  crimes  as  is  given  us  respecting  the  names 
of  the  murdered  ones.  Ecvehition  seeks  not  the  tragic. 
I.t  is  not  concerned  with  those  harrowing  details  which 
ever  feed  a  morbid  mind  or  else  excite  a  morbid  craving. 
It  is  a  matter  of  surprise  to  learn  that  this  account  of  La- 
mech  is  in  poetry.  The  deed  probably  was  first  recorded 
in  a  kind  of  penitential  poem.  The  overburdened  con- 
science utters  itself  in  secret  shelter  of  the  home,  the  ag- 
onized husband  pours  out  his  penitent  lament  to  his  two 
wives : 

"Adah  and  Zillah, 
Hear  my  voice, 
Wives  of  Lamech, 
Give  ear  to  my  saying." 

Such  are  the  words  of  the  sorrow-stricken  man.  The 
impartation  was  to  be  momentous.  Household  words, 
names  of  loving  associations,  are  first  employed  in  the 
announcement.  "Adah  and  Zillah  "  were  words  precious 
through  home-memories  to  Lamech.  Nor  can  love  alone 
be  appealed  to  in  this  appeal  for  listeners.  "Wives  of 
Lamech  "  are  added.  The  duty  of  wifehood  js  ever  to 
hearken  and  not  turn  away  in  the  critical  moments  of 
husbands.  Love  and  duty  are  addressed  with  petition 
in  this  awful  time  of  sorrow  for  Lamech.  This  is  all  that 
revelation  cares  to  record.  We  know  not  how  Adah 
and  Zillah  received  the  words  of  their  husband.  Such 
record  would  be  only  the  statement  of  attendant  cu'cum- 
stances.  The  significant  fact  is  that  crime  produces  un- 
rest, and  that  murder  will  out.     "Adah  and  Zillah  "  must 


212  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

hear  Lamech.  But  it  is  more  than  the  mere  fact  of 
murder  that  they  must  hear.  The  next  two  lines  of  this 
fragment  of  poetry  give  us  the  additional  something. 
Mankind  is  interested  to  know  it.  It  is  the  first  uttered 
confession  of  the  effect  of  sin  upon  the  sinner.  Adam 
and  Eve  sinned,  but  they  fled  from  Jehovah.  Cain  com- 
mitted sin,  but  he  faced  Jehovah,  listened  to  his  sentence, 
and  when  he  learned  the  full  import  of  the  sentence  he 
broke  forth  in  the  despairing  cry  that  his  punishment 
was  greater  than  he  could  bear.  Lamech  sinned,  and  ho 
says  to  his  wives : 

"  I  have  slain  a  man  to  my  wounding, 

And  a  youth  to  my  hurt." 

"  Wound  "  and  "  hurt "  are  the  fulcrum  words  of  the 
passage.  Crime  wounds,  crime  hurts.  Revelation  will 
record  this  fact.  It  records  all  the  great  ethical  truths 
of  human  life.  Measure  the  wound,  measure  the  hurt, 
then  estimate  the  need  Lamech  had  that  "Adah  and 
Zillah"  should  hear.  It  is  as  if  the  greatly  troubled 
heart  of  the  man  was  laid  open  for  us  to  behold,  and  thus 
warning  given  to  us.     But  two  lines  remain.    They  are : 

"  If  Cain  shall  be  avenged  seven-fold, 
Tnily  Lamech  seventy  and  seven  fold." 

Cain  knew  that  every  one  finding  him  "would  slay" 
him.  Much  more  did  Lamech  know  the  same  fact,  yet 
the  promise  of  mercy  given  to  Cain  was  one  assured  to 
him ;  and  he  could  threaten  a  vengeance  greater  on  the 
one  slaying  him  than  would  bo  taken  upon  the  slayer  of 
Cain.    Such  is  the  assurance  of  Lamech.    Cain  and  La- 


THE  FAITH  Of  THE  ANTEDltUVlAN  PATRIARCHS.     2l3 

mech  are  alike  in  the  kind  of  crime.  Both  alike  bear 
witness  to  the  fact  that  Jehovah  God  punishes  crime 
justly.  Both  declare  that  promise  is  given,  where  crime 
and  its  punishment  force  out  the  heart's  despairing  cry 
or  the  heart's  confession  of  the  "  wound  "  and  the  "  hurt." 
Both  testify  to  this  Fifth  Faith. 

Sixth  Faith. — Wickedness  brings  destruction,  right- 
eousness saves. 

And  Jehovah  said : 

"  My  spirit  does  not  rule  in  man, 

Forever  through  their  erring  he  is  flesh, 

And  so  his  days  shall  become  one  hundred  and  twenty  years." 

And  Jehovah  saw  that  the  evil  of  man  was  great  in  the  earth, 
and  every  imagination  of  the  thouglits  of  his  heart  was  only  evil 
all  his  days,  and  Jehovah  repented  that  he  made  man  in  the 
earth,  and  it  grieved  his  heart,  and  Jehovah  said : 

"  I  will  blot  out  the  man 

Whom  I  have  created 

From  the  face  of  the  earth. 

Yes,  man  and  beast, 

The  creeping  thing  and  the  bird  of  heaven. 

For  I  repent  that  I  made  them." 

And  Enoch  walked  with  The-Grod, 

And  he  was  not,  for  God  took  him. 

Noah  found  favor  in  the  sight  of  Jehovah, 

Noah,  the  righteous  man,  was  iHjrfect  in  his  generations, 

Noah  walked  with  The-Gotl. 

And  Jehovah  said  to  Noah  : 

"  Come  thou  and  all  thy  house  into  the  ark, 

For  I  have  seen  thee 

Righteous  before  me  in  this  generation." 


214  DisctJssioNs  m  theology. 

Carnality  became  characteristic  of  the  conduct  of  the 
children  of  The-God.  It  was  then  that  Jehovah  spoke. 
The  inference  is  fair,  from  the  close  connection  of  these 
two  facts,  that  The-God  and  Jehovah  were  synonyms 
in  these  earliest  narratives.  Other  reasons  for  this  as- 
sumption will  be  given  later  on.  The  words  of  Jehovah, 
"  My  Spirit  does  not  rule  in  man,"  reflect  the  account  of 
man's  creation  as  given  in  the  second  chapter.  Man  there 
as  flesh  was  linked  to  the  whole  animal  creation,  but  as 
spirit  was  like  Jehovah.  Alone  in  man,  among  all  created 
things,  might  the  spirit  of  Jehovah  rule.  Yet,  in  sorrow, 
Jehovah  said :  "  My  Spirit  does  not  rule  in  man."  New 
discipline  must  therefore  be  exercised  to  better  man. 
The  former  promises,  the  former  mercies,  the  former 
curses  upon  him  for  his  sin  did  not  hold  man  in  allegiance 
to  Jehovah.  One  only  estimate  is  given  of  him.  Jeho- 
vah says :  "  He  is  flesh."  Here  first  appears  in  revelation 
that  contrast  of  flesh  and  spirit,  of  the  carnal  and  the 
spiritual,  which  has  had  its  completest  development  in 
the  Pauline  theology.  The  right  to  this  definition  of 
man  as  carnal  is  given  by  the  word  of  Jehovah.  The 
new  discipline,  introduced  by  Jehovah  when  man  had 
become  flesh,  was  to  shorten  the  period  of  himian  life. 
"  His  days  shall  become  one  hundred  and  twenty  years." 
This  is  the  new  regime.  The  progress  of  man  then  in 
carnality  became  the  reason  for  the  abridgment  of  his 
days. 

Another  picture  still  of  man's  wickedness  is  drawn  in 
blacker  colors.    Jehovah  saw  "  that  the  evil  of  man  was 


THE  FAITH  OF  TflE  ANTEDILUVIAN  l»ATaiAllCHS.      215 

great  in  the  earth."  Man's  imagination,  his  heart,  be- 
came evil.    Jehovah  again  speaks.    His  words  are  : 

"  I  will  blot  out  the  man 

Whom  I  have  created 

From  the  fece  of  the  earth. 

Yes,  man  and  beast, 

The  creeping  thing  and  the  bird  of  heaven, 

For  I  repent  that  I  made  them." 

Such  then  was  the  awful  outcome  of  man's  wicked- 
ness. Many  questions  arise  while  contemplating  these 
words  of  Jehovah.  Yet  these  we  may  not  suggest  now, 
much  less  answer.  Their  great  teaching  is  that  Jeho- 
vah will  not  tolerate  evil.  He  will  not  look  upon  it  with 
the  least  degree  of  allowance.  He  will  destroy  evil,  all 
who  are  evil — ^yes,  all  which  hath  a  nature  like  the  evil 
man  :  all  flesh,  man,  beast,  bird,  and  creeping  thing  shall 
be  blotted  out.     Such  is  the  fruit  of  man's  wickedness. 

But  Enoch  breaks  in  on  this  dark  picture. 

Enoch  walked  with  The-Grod.  And  he  was  not ;  for  God  took 
him. 

His  companionship  was  not  with  men.  Peace  with  him 
was  not  attained  through  sacrifice.  By  communion  he 
had  peace.  Beautiful  must  have  been  his  daily  walk. 
His  life  was  the  firet  temple  of  The-God.  His  fellows 
beheld  his  worship  therein,  and  handed  down  to  the  com- 
ing generations  his  great  fame.  Enoch  was  the  first 
who  walked  with  The-God.  The  loving  heart  is  as  much 
the  possession  of  the  Hebrew  God  as  his  unlimited  power. 
Adam,  Eve,  Cain,  Lamech — all  had  experienced  his  loving 


216  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOaY. 

pity  and  encouragement,  when  they  were  repentant  in 
transgression.  How  then  shall  Enoch,  who  walked  with 
The-God,  receive  signal  proof  of  his  love  ?  Simple  is  the 
record :  "And  he  was  not,  for  God  took  him,"  There  is 
mystery  in  the  words  "  God  took  him,"  It  is  not  to  the 
Hebrew  mind  identical  with  the  thought  of  death.  The 
Christian  mind  has  accepted  a  distinction  and  has  uttered 
it  in  the  words  "  Enoch  was  translated."  God's  love  of 
Enoch  distinguished  him  by  making  his  departure  from 
life  different  from  other  men.  He  walked  with  God,  he 
was  God's,  and  God  took  his  own.  Such  is  the  first  defi- 
nition of  salvation  for  the  good,  as  found  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  Material  prosperity,  temporal  good  have  no 
place  in  this  first  allotment  of  God  to  his  faithful  servant, 
Enoch  first  found  his  life  in  communion  with  his  Maker. 
God  permitted  no  man  to  see  that  communion  broken  by 
death, 

Noah  is  type  of  a  salvation  different  from  that  of  Enoch, 
Yet,  although  the  salvation  of  each  is  different  in  mode, 
the  type  of  character  which  merits  salvation  is  the  same 
in  each  case.    In  these  words  Noah  is  described : 

Noah  found  fever  in  the  sight  of  Jehovah 

Noah,  the  righteous  man,  was  perfect  in  his  generation. 

Noah  walked  with  The-God. 

These  passages  teach  us  first  that  Jehovah  and  The- 
God  are  names  interchangeable  in  this  time  as  in  that  of 
Enoch.  Noah,  it  must  be  admitted,  could  find  favor 
alone  with  that  God  who  received  his  worship.  It  is 
here  stated  that  Noah  walked  with  The-God.    He,  like 


THE  PAITH  OF  THE  ANTEDILUVIAN  PATEIABCH8.      217 

Enoch,  communes  with  The-God.  He  also  finds  favor 
with  Jehovah.  The  inference  is  then  well  founded  that 
The-God  is  also  Jehovah. 

Another  teaching  is  that  the  righteous  man  in  the 
earliest  times  was  he  who  walked  with  God.  At  first  the 
very  soul  of  righteousness  was  communion  with  God. 
Then  righteousness  was  the  character  wrought  in  man 
by  communion  with  God.  In  a  deep  sense  communion 
with  God  is  always  the  heart  of  righteousness. 

The  third  teaching  is,  that  at  this  time  a  man  was  per- 
fect in  his  generation  only  as  he  was  righteous  and  so 
had  communion  with  God.  The  perfection  of  the  Old 
Testament  was  then  a  life  of  communion  with  God. 
Enoch  and  Noah  were  the  first  perfect  men  according 
to  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  This  essential  element  of  per- 
fection must  ever  be  present  in  all  definitions  of  perfec- 
tion, which  have  their  warrant  in  the  sacred  Scriptures. 
A  man  with  perfection  of  this  type  has  ever  favor  in  the 
sight  of  Jehovah.  Perfect  and  righteous  are  here  but 
different  phases  of  the  same  work,  accomplished  in  man 
by  communion  with  God,  and  so  we  find  these  words  in- 
terchanged in  this  period. 

And  Jehovah  said  to  Noah : 

"  Come  thou  and  all  thy  house  into  the  Ark. 

For  I  have  seen  thee 

Righteous  before  me  in  this  generation." 

These  words  tell  the  salvation  of  Noah,  which  Jehovah 
accomplished,  because  Noah  was  righteous.  This  salva- 
tion extended  to  his  family.     Salvation  here  is  simply 


218  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

rescue.  It  has  no  reference  to  a  salvation  from  the  world, 
achieved  through  communion  with  Grod.  It  stands  in 
contmst  with  the  salvation  which  Enoch  experienced. 

These  words  also  hold  in  bud  all  the  Hebrew  faith,  so 
far  as  it  bears  upon  the  special  care  of  Jehovah  over  the 
righteous.  The  unfolding  of  this  bud  gives  us  the  man- 
ifold beauty  of  the  Old  Testament,  so  far  as  it  relates  to 
the  watchful  care  of  Jehovah  over  those  who  commune 
with  him.  "Thou  and  thy  house,"  Noah  and  his  fam- 
ily, the  righteous  man  and  those  who  were  most  inti- 
mately associated  with  him,  these  are  they  whom  Jeho- 
vah will  choose  for  a  new  departure  in  the  development 
of  man  in  righteousness,  in  communion  with  him.  The 
message  is  the  word  "  Come ; "  ever  a  word  freighted 
with  loving,  attractive  power  when  spoken  by  Jehovah 
to  those  that  commune  with  him.  The  ark  is  ever  a 
symbol  of  that  salvation  from  physical  dangers,  which 
Jehovah  vouchsafes  to  the  righteous  in  time  of  universal 
danger.  Special  deliverances  must  ever  be  predicated  as 
possible  in  this  form  of  religious  faith,  which  cherishes 
Noah  as  one  of  its  earliest  and  brightest  lights. 

Enoch  and  Noah  walked  with  Jehovah ;  they  had  com- 
panionship not  with  men,  but  with  The-God.  The  uni- 
verse held  for  these  two  patriarchs  more  than  what  the 
eyes  could  see,  the  ears  hear,  the  hands  handle,  the  nose 
smell,  and  the  tongue  taste.  These  sense-realities  all 
were  subsidiary.  These  two  believers  declared  other  re- 
alities. They  knew  another  world  than  that  of  sense. 
They  therefore  communed  with  Jehovah. 


THE  *AITH  OP  THB  ANTEDILUVIAN  PATRIARCHS.      219 

We  have  studied  the  Six  Faiths  which  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  record  as  the  first  faiths  the  world  knew. 
The  First  Faith  has  two  parts.  One  is  that  Jehovah  God 
is  Creator.  Hence  the  silent  stars  of  the  night,  innumer- 
able in  number,  immeasurable  in  distance,  were  made  by 
God.  The  vast  waters,  swarming  with  countless  forms 
of  life,  rising  in  their  rage  into  resistless,  sublime  powers, 
were  made  by  God.  The  fruitful  earth,  declaring  plan 
and  purpose  in  every  plant,  and  dazzling  the  mind  with 
its  infinite  variety  of  life,  was  made  by  God.  Such  is  the 
God  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  from  the  first.  Alone  he 
stands  in  the  midst  of  his  works,  and  their  glory  declare 
the  incomprehensible  majesty  of  their  Creator.  The  fact 
of  the  universe  is  the  basal  fact,  according  to  the  He- 
brews, for  belief  in  God.  The  unspeakable  worthiness  of 
what  he  hath  made  manifests  the  exalted  worthfulness 
of  the  Maker. 

The  second  part  of  this  first  and  fundamental  faith  is 
that  man  is  the  creature  likest  Jehovah  God.  Hence 
beautiful  are  the  reciprocal  relations  between  God  and 
man.  All  that  God  hath  made  become  incentives  to 
call  forth  the  activities  of  man.  God  calls  into  life  the 
luxuriant  beauty  of  the  flowers.  Man  cannot  produce 
them  alive  save  from  the  seed.  But  he  may  cut  out  their 
shape  in  stone,  and  may  even  give  their  colors  and  form 
on  canvas,  creating  with  their  aid  beautiful  independent 
works  of  his  own.  The  works  of  God  become  hints  to 
man,  guides  to  him  in  his  own  personal  creative  activity. 
Again,  God  in  blessing  becomes  an  object  of  man's  imita- 


220  DiSCtTSStONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

tion.  The  impartiality  of  God  in  conferring  the  neces- 
sary gifts  on  all  alike  finds  in  man  one  who  follows  his 
footsteps.  The  divine  law  is  impartial ;  so  human  law  is 
meant  to  be.  Divine  government  recognizes  no  distinc- 
tion in  persons ;  so  human  government,  in  theory  at  least, 
is  designed  to  be.  In  many  realms  the  likeness  of  this 
creature  man  to  God  is  clearly  manifest.  Such  is  the 
faith  concerning  man  which  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  pre- 
sent. Would  we  know  God?  then  truly  know  man. 
Would  we  know  man  ?  then  truly  know  God.  Advance 
of  reliable  knowledge  in  either  realm  assures  advance  in 
the  other. 

The  Second  Faith  appoints  man  to  his  rank  in  the  uni- 
verse. He  alone  receives  commandment  from  God.  Yet 
not  a  commandment  which  exhibits  simply  the  arbitrary 
will  of  the  Creator,  nor  a  senseless  commandment  imposed 
upon  man  in  order  to  remind  him  constantly  of  his  sub- 
ordination in  rank.  Not  a  glance  could  have  been  thrown 
by  man  at  his  surroundings  but  that  it  would  have  taught 
him  his  place  as  respects  the  Creator  of  all  things.  The 
love  of  God  for  the  creature  likest  himself  necessitated 
this  commandment  of  obedience.  Man's  weal  or  woe  de- 
pended on  the  knowledge  given  in  the  commandment. 
The  greatest  calamity  that  could  befall  man  was  the 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  Such  knowledge  God  for- 
bid him  to  obtain.  The  fii*st  law,  the  law  given  in  Eden, 
was  simply  protection  against  evil. 

The  Third  and  Fourth  Faiths  are  witnesses  to  the  fact 
that  it  is  diflScult  to  dethrone  the  innocence  and  goodness 


THE  FAITH  OF  THE  ANTEDILUVIAN  PATRIARCHS.      221 

of  man  whom  God  made.  Beguilement  alono  was  the  ef- 
fective means.  Man  chose  to  break  the  law,  that  thereby 
he  might  become  completely  like  God  who  made  him. 
Under  beguilement  man,  thinking  to  choose  the  method 
to  bring  him  in  closest  resemblance  to  God,  in  reality 
chose  that  path  which  led  him  away  from  God  and  made 
him  most  unlike  his  Creator.  This  third  faith  gives  the 
power  in  us  and  the  way  of  its  coming,  which  ever  works 
unlikeness  to  God.  This  power  is  evil.  The  person  in- 
fluencing man  through  this  power  to  ways  of  conduct 
which  produced  in  him  unlikeness  to  God  is  Satan. 

The  Fifth  Faith  reveals  the  justice  of  Jehovah  God.  In 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures  the  first  portrayal  of  God  as  just 
does  not  present  him  as  concerned  only  in  beholding  of- 
fenses against  himself  and  punishing  the  culprit.  This 
side  of  justice  is  present,  and  in  its  fullest  and  strictest  as- 
pect. But,  as  just,  Jehovah  God  also  looks  at  the  influ- 
ences leading  to  the  offenses  and  the  feelings  of  the 
offenders  after  the  offenses  had  been  committed.  Pun- 
ishment was  not  mitigated  by  the  ameliorating  circum- 
stances, but  loving  pity  was  excited  thereby.  Sorrow 
for  the  disaster  to  which  his  deed  had  brought  man  did 
not  wipe  out  the  disaster,  but  it  did  secure  promise  that 
in  the  end  the  seed  of  the  woman  should  obtain  triumph. 
Jehovah  God's  justice  is  no  less  conspicuous  by  the  sure 
sequence  of  punishment  upon  man  for  his  transgression 
than  by  the  equally  sure  sequence  of  promise  upon  the 
presence  of  sorrow  in  the  heart  of  man  for  his  sin  and 
its  ruin. 


222  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOOY. 

The  Sixth  Faith  respects  character,  and  not  actsof  man. 
Wickedness  brings  destruction,  righteousness  saves.  It  is 
the  fullest  expression  of  what  might  have  been  deduced 
from  the  fourth  faith.  The  essence  of  righteousness  is 
walking  with  God.  Its  effect  is  to  restore  man  into  like- 
ness to  him  with  whom  he  walks.  The  end  of  one  of  the 
world-epochs  culminates  with  this  fundamental  faith. 
The  next  departure  in  the  world's  best  religious  develop- 
ment commences  with  the  man  whose  life  was  a  life  of 
communion  with  Jehovah  God.  The  brightest  light  in 
the  firmament  of  the  heart  after  the  flood  was  the  faith 
that  righteous  walking  with  Jehovah  God  saved.  Enoch 
translated  was  witness  to  the  reward  of  a  salvation  that 
eye  had  not  seen  nor  ear  heard.  Noah  was  witness  to  a 
salvation  that  the  senses  might  take  cognizance  of.  Both 
walked  with  Jehovah  God.  Both  had  righteousness. 
Both  were  saved. 

In  most  brief  compass  we  have  studied  the  six  great 
earliest  faiths  of  mankind,  as  revelation  imparts  them. 
The  antediluvian  patriarchs  possessed  them.  They  re- 
veal the  high  estate  of  man.  They  tell  of  his  fall.  The 
subsequent  darkness  becomes  illuminated  by  the  light  of 
promise.  The  inexorable  character  of  evil  is  proclaimed. 
It  bringeth  destruction.  The  intrinsic  worth  of  right- 
eousness is  made  known.  It  is  the  condition  of  salvation. 
Subsequent  revelation  may  unfold  the  fuller  meaning  of 
these  six  faiths,  but  it  can  never  abrogate  one  of 
them.  They  stand  fixed  stars  in  the  firmament  of  man's 
religious  knowledge.     They  constitute  the  greatest  im- 


THE  FAITH  OF  THE  ANTEDILUVIAN  PATRIARCHS.      223 

port  to  us  of  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis.  They  are  the 
granite  rock,  on  which  is  builded  the  magnificent  Chris- 
tian temple.  Step  by  step  has  the  staircase  been  raised, 
stone  after  stone  has  been  placed  in  its  mighty  walls, 
throughout  the  Old  Testament.  The  chief  comer-stone 
in  all  its  beauty  and  strength  was  set  in  its  place  through 
the  New  Testament,  while  the  roof  above  is  the  glory  of 
the  Lord.  Herein  we  may  enter  in  safety,  blending  our 
songs  of  praise  with  the  unceasing  music  which  thank- 
ful burdened  human  hearts  have  made  since  first  it  was 
revealed  that  Jehovah  God  forgives  sin  on  account  of  re- 
pentance, and  saves  all  who  by  communion  with  him 
possess  righteousness. 


FUTURE  AND  ETERNAL  PUNISH- 
MENT. 


I  PROPOSE  to  discuss  in  this  paper  the  subject  of  future 
and  eternal  punishment,  with  especial  reference  to  the 
rational  grounds  upon  which  the  Scripture  doctrine  rests. 
The  argument  here  given  assumes  the  truth  of  the  Chris- 
tian Scriptures,  and,  as  a  consequence,  the  doctrine  of 
the  immortality  of  the  human  soul.  From  time  to  time 
individuals  have  appeared  who  have  tried  to  reconcile 
the  doctrine  of  the  annihilation  of  the  souls  of  the  wicked 
at  death  with  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures,  but  this 
cannot  be  done.  If  there  is  any  future  existence  and 
state  of  happiness  for  the  good,  there  is  a  future  exist- 
ence and  state  of  misery  for  the  wicked.  These  two 
doctrines  are  so  presented  in  Scripture,  are  so  interwoven 
and  contrasted,  that  to  deny  the  one  necessitates  the  de- 
nial of  the  other,  and  to  affirm  the  one  necessitates  the 
affirmation  of  the  other.  Our  purpose,  therefore,  is,  as- 
suming the  truth  of  Scripture  concerning  the  immortality 
of  human  souls,  to  show  that  the  future  and  eternal  pun- 
ishment of  the  finally  impenitent  and  incorrigibly  wicked 
is  not  only  a  reasonable  but  a  necessary  feature  of  the 
Divine  government. 

The  teachings  of  Scripture  concerning  man  in  his 
relation  to  time  and  eternity  may  be  summed  up  in  the 
15 


226  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

follaA^ing  proposition :  This  life  is  a  state  of  probation, 
of  limited  duration,  in  which  man,  a  free  moral  agent, 
is,  with  full  knowledge  of  the  fact,  undergoing  a  trial 
that  is  to  determine  his  happiness  or  misery  in  tha^^ 
future  and  eternal  life  that  begins  at  death.  That  man's 
free  conduct  in  this  life  should  fix  irrevocably  his  des- 
tiny in  the  world  to  come,  is  the  most  momentous  fact 
connected  with  human  existence.  It  invests  this  life  with 
an  infinite  importance. 

The  trial  of  a  free  being  in  a  state  of  probation,  issuing 
in  a  fixed  and  eternal  state,  involves  five  steps,  or  stages, 
that  may  be  indicated  by  the  following  words :  volitions, 
acts,  habits,  character,  destiny.  Volitions,  put  forth,  re- 
sult in  acts ;  acts,  often  repeated,  fix  habits ;  habits,  long 
continued  in,  make  character;  character,  when  fixed,  de- 
termines destiny.  Let  us  consider  these  things  in  them- 
selves and  in  their  relations  to  each  other. 

Yolitions  are  the  expression  of  our  freedom.  They  are 
the  decisions  of  our  wills  acting  freely  and  uncontrolled 
by  any  thing  outside  of  themselves.  Our  moral  account- 
ability is  based  upon  the  fact  that  we  are  free  moral 
agents ;  and  our  freedom  consists  not  so  much  in  the  fact 
that  we  do  what  we  will  to  do  as  in  the  power  to  con- 
trol our  own  wills  and  to  determine  our  own  volitions. 
A  sin  lies  rather  in  a  volition  of  the  will  than  in  the  exter- 
nal act  resulting  from  that  volition.  Our  volitions  are  just 
what  we  make  them  and  just  as  we  make  them — holy  or 
unholy,  virtuous  or  vicious.  Our  moral  free  agency  con- 
sists in  the  conscious  possession  of  the  power  to  do  right 


FUTURE  AND  ETERNAL  PUNISHMENT.  227 

or  wrong  just  as  we  choose.  Our  volitions,  the  decis- 
ions of  our  wills,  are  freer  than  thought ;  they  are  free- 
dom itself.  Destiny,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  state  or  con- 
dition irrevocably  fixed  and  eternally  unalterable.  Yet 
auch  is  the  nature  of  moral  probation  and  free  agency 
that  that  which  is  volition  in  its  origin  becomes  destiny 
in  its  end.    Let  us  see  how  this  comes  about. 

Volitions  make  acts.  We  control  our  volitions  at  will, 
but  when  volitions  have  been  put  into  execution  and 
have  become  acts,  they  have  gone  beyond  our  power  of 
control.  We  cannot  undo  an  act  that  is  done.  Not  even 
the  omnipotent  God  can  undo  an  act  that  is  done  or  un- 
say a  word  that  is  said,  although  He  may  by  His  omnip- 
otence make  the  act,  so  far  as  its  results  are  concerned, 
as  though  it  had  never  been  done,  and  the  word  as 
though  it  had  never  been  said.  But  while  we  cannot 
undo  an  act  that  is  done,  we  need  not  repeat  the  act  un- 
less we  choose.  If,  however,  the  act  be  repeated,  we  find 
ourselves  in  the  presence  of  a  new  law,  viz.,  that  each 
repetition  of  an  act  begets  a  rapidly  increasing  and  pow- 
erful tendency  toward  future  repetitions.  That  is,  acts 
often  repeated  create  habits,  something  more  fixed  and 
powerful  than  themselves.  But  still  a  man  may,  such  is 
the  power  of  the  human  will,  break  his  habits,  even 
though  they  be  like  chains  of  iron.  But  habits  long  con- 
tinued in  fix  something  stronger  and  more  unalterable 
than  themselves,  namely,  character,  and  no  man  can 
change  his  character.  Man  may  change  his  habits,  but 
only  God  can  change  character.   And  when  character  has 


228  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

been  so  long  continued  in  that  it  becomes  fixed,  it  passes 
into  destiny,  and  not  oven  God  over  changes  destiny.  In- 
deed we  may  say  that,  in  keeping  with  the  laws  of  His 
moral  government,  God  cannot  change  destiny. 

When  does  a  sinner  pass  the  invisible  dead-line  that 
separates  alterable  character  froni  unalterable  destiny? 
Before  death,  or  only  at  death  ?  We  believe  that,  while 
all  must  pass  it  at  death,  some  may  and  do  pass  it  before 
death.  We  believe  that  some  sinners  become  so  fixed  in 
their  evil  character  that  they  reach  a  point  beyond  which 
it  is  morally  certain  that  they  will  never  and  can  never 
be  saved — not  a  point  beyond  which  God  cannot  and 
will  not  save  them  if  they  fulfill  the  conditions  of  salva- 
tion (indeed  that  point  is  never  reached  beyond  death  or 
throughout  eternity),  but  a  point  beyond  which  their 
sin-bound  wills  will  never  have  the  moral  power  to  re- 
spond to  the  wooings  of  divine  grace.  So  Dr.  J.  A.  Alex- 
ander sung  in  his  memorable  lines : 

"  There  is  a  time,  we  know  not  when, 

A  place,  we  know  not  where, 
That  seals  the  destiny  of  man 

For  glory  or  despair." 

Nor  is  this  contradicted  by  the  no  less  familiar  lines  of 
Dr.  Isaac  Watts : 

"  Life  is  the  time  to  serve  the  Lord, 

The  time  t'  insure  the  great  reward ; 

And  while  the  lamp  holds  out  to  burn,  \ 

The  vilest  sinner  may  return." 

This  is  true,  so  far  as  God  is  concerned,  and  not  only  true 


ftJTtRE  ANl)  ETERNAL  PUKlSHliENT.  229 

"  while  the  lamp  holds  out  to  burn,"  but,  as  we  shall  pres- 
ently show,  is  true  throughout  eternity.  The  sinner 
never  reaches  the  point,  either  in  this  life  or  in  the  life  to 
come,  where  the  reason  of  his  not  being  saved  is  in  Grod 
and  not  in  himself;  but  he  does  reach  a  point  in  the  de- 
velopment of  his  moral  character  and  destiny,  beyond 
which  it  is  morally  certain  that  he  will  never  thereafter 
repent  and  believe ;  and  at  that  point  the  dividing  line 
may  be  drawn  which  distinguishes  character  that  may 
be  changed  from  character  that  is  fixed  in  its  unalterable 
destiny.  While,  in  the  formation  of  character,  free  will 
and  volitions  are  the  cause  and  character  is  the  result, 
yet,  when  character  is  formed,  then  it  becomes  the  cause 
and  volitions  the  result.  As  a  moral  free  agent,  man  be- 
comes bad,  and  attains  to  evil  character,  only  because  he 
freely  chooses  and  freely  does  that  which  is  wrong ;  but 
evil  character,  when  once  formed,  in  turn  accounts  for 
and  produces  necessarily  evil  volitions  and  evil  acts. 
A  man  becomes  bad  because  of  his  evil  volitions,  but  a 
bad  man  puts  forth  evil  volitions  because  he  is  bad.  So 
that  while  it  is  true  in  the  formation  of  character  under 
moral  probation  that  free  volitions  make  acts,  and  acts 
make  habits,  and  habits  make  character,  and  character 
makes  destiny ;  yet  when  destiny  is  reached  the  reverse 
relation  exists,  viz.,  that  destiny  fixes  character,  and 
character  determines  the  habits,  the  acts,  and  the  voli- 
tions of  the  moral  agent.  Hence  it  is  that  probation 
comes  at  length  to  an  end  by  its  own  laws,  and  good 
character  is  made  permanent  and  is  secured  in  goodness 


230  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

forever,  and  vicious  character  is  made  permanent  and  is 
secured  in  evil  forever. 

That  there  has  been  a  change  in  the  way  the  Scripture 
doctrine  of  future  and  eternal  punishment  is  presented 
by  the  Christian  Church,  may  be  freely  admitted.  Many 
passages  that  were  once  interpreted  literally  are  now  in- 
tei*preted  figuratively.  "Devouring  fire,"  "everlasting 
burnings,"  "unquenchable  fire,"  "lake  of  fire  burning 
with  brimstone,"  "  where  their  worm  dieth  not  and  their 
fire  is  not  quenched,"  "  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth," 
"  chains  of  darkness,"  "  bottomless  pit,"  "  smoke  of  tor- 
ment"— the  time  was  when  these  passages  may  have 
been  presented  so  literally  that  a  ground  was  laid  for  in- 
telligent and  reasonable  criticism  of  the  Scripture  doc- 
trine. But,  although  these  passages  are  purely  figura- 
tive, they  set  forth  a  stern  and  awful  reality.  The  re- 
ality of  a  place  of  punishment  for  the  wicked  is  taught 
by  language  not  only  figurative,  but  the  most  literal. 
There  may  be  no  literal  "  fire  and  brimstone  "  and  no  lit- 
eral "  worm  that  dieth  not "  in  the  abode  of  the  lost ;  but 
there  is  nevertheless  a  real  fire  there  that  is  not  quenched 
and  a  real  worm  that  dieth  not.  The  guilty  conscience 
of  the  lost  is  a  worm  that  dieth  not,  a  fire  that  is  not 
quenched. 

Suppose  there  be  no  positive  pain  inflicted  upon  the 
souls  of  the  lost  and  their  only  torment  be  such  as  grows 
out  of  their  own  character  and  their  necessary  environ- 
ments, would  this  rob  future  punishment  of  its  most 
awful  attributes  ?    Nay,  it  would  not  affect  in  the  least 


PtJTURE  ANt)  ETERNAL  PtTNlSttMENT,  231 

the  awfulness  of  the  condition  of  the  lost.  The  next  to 
the  worst  penalty  attached  to  human  crime  and  known  to 
human  law  involves  the  infliction  of  no  positive  pain,  viz., 
imprisonment  for  life  in  the  penitentiary.  Indeed  we 
would  infinitely  prefer  to  be  innocent,  and  the  victims  of 
constant  and  painful  disease,  and  be  outside  of  the  prison, 
than  to  be  the  healthiest  persons  on  the  face  of  the  earth, 
and  hopelessly  confined  for  our  guilt  within  penitentiary 
walls.  This  shows  plainly  that  sin,  with  its  attendant 
evils  and  terrible  consequences,  is  far  more  awful  than 
more  physical  pain.  It  is  a  very  low  and  vulgar  idea  of 
punishment  that  makes  it  synonymous  with  the  suffering 
of  physical  pain  externally  inflicted.  If  the  future  pun- 
ishment of  the  wicked  be  nothing  more  than  the  remorse 
of  a  guilty  conscience  and  hopeless  self-confinement  in 
the  penitentiary  of  the  lost,  it  has  in  it  evpry  element  of 
horror  that  can  appeal  to  a  rational  soul. 

Nor  does  Ood  need  to  build  the  walls  of  this  peniten- 
tiary of  the  lost.  It  is  character  that  makes  hell,  not 
God.  It  is  character  that  puts  a  man  in  hell  and  keeps 
him  there,  not  .God.  That  death  shall  forever  separate 
the  good  from  the  bad,  the  holy  from  the  unholy,  is 
everywhere  taught  in  Scripture,  but  the  ground  and 
cause  of  discrimination  and  separation  is  in  human  char- 
acter and  not  in  the  will  of  God.  At  death  those  who 
believe  in  and  love  God  will  go  to  their  own  place ;  and 
those  who  do  not  believe  in  and  love  Ilim  will  go  to  their 
place.  The  lost  are  the  outcasts  of  this  world.  A  wicked 
man  could  bo  made  no  happier  by  being  admitted  into 


232  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

the  presence  of  the  pure  and  holy  God — it  is  more  prob- 
able that  his  misery  would  thereby  be  increased.  A  sin- 
ner cannot  endure  the  presence  of  God.  Does  the  vicious 
and  confirmed  criminal  in  this  world  seek  out  and  enjoy 
the  companionship  of  the  holy  and  saintly  man  of  God, 
and  find  his  happiness  therein  ?  or  does  he  rather  avoid 
such  company?  Would  it  increase  the  happiness  of  a 
lost  soul,  confirmed  in  evil  character,  to  be  admitted  into 
the  presence  of  God  to  spend  eternity  ?  Nay,  it  would 
add  to  his  torment.  For  aught  we  know,  then,  hell  is  a 
less  miserable  place  to  lost  souls  than  heaven  would  be, 
for  heaven  is  the  place  where  that  holy  God  is  whose 
awful  presence  sinners  cannot  endure. 

Too  many  teachers  of  Christian  truth  have  encouraged 
the  idea  that  God  makes  hell,  that  God  determines  its 
torments  by  an  act  of  his  will,  and  that  these  pains  and 
torments  are  externally  inflicted  by  God.  It  is  not  so.  Sin, 
a  guilty  conscience,  evil  character — these  are  the  things 
which  make  hell.  People  this  earth  with  saints,  with  those 
whose  characters  are  pure  and  holy,  and  you  make  a 
heaven  of  it.  People  it  with  the  incorrigibly  wicked, 
those  whose  charafcters  are  vicious  and  criminal,  and  you 
make  a  hell,  a  pandemonium,  of  it.  It  is  not  the  place 
that  makes  hell,  it  is  the  people  there,  it  is  the  wicked 
character  of  those  who  are  there.  The  future  punish- 
ment of  the  sinner,  therefore,  does  not  mean  confinement 
in  a  certain  place  of  misery  from  which  if  he  could  es- 
cape he  would  be  happy,  but  it  means  a  state  of  misery 
inseparable  from  his  wicked   character,  which  misery 


ftJTURE  AND  ETERNAL  PUNISHMENT.  233 

would  not  be  diminished  but  rather  increased  if  the  sin- 
ner were  in  the  immediate  presence  of  God  and  the  holy 
saints  and  angels.  The  vulgar  idea  of  heaven  and  hell  is, 
that  the  one  is  a  place  of  happiness  and  the  other  a  place 
of  torment — and  that  if  perchance  a  sinner  should  get  into 
heaven  he  would  be  happy,  and  that  if  a  saint  should  get 
into  hell,  he  would  bo  miserable — in  short  that  it  is  the 
place  and  not  character  that  determines  future  weal  and 
woe.  We  affirm,  on  the  other  hand,  that  it  is  character 
that  makes  heaven  and  character  that  makes  hell.  Holi- 
ness— the  holy  God,  holy  saints,  holy  angels — these  make 
heaven.  Sin — Satan,  evil  angels,  guilty  sinners — these 
make  hell.  The  sinner's  misery  is  determined  by  his 
guilty  character,  and  is  inseparable  from  it.  He  can  no 
more  escape  from  his  misery  by  changing  his  place  than 
he  can  escape  from  himself  and  his  sinful  character  by 
changing  his  place. 

There  is  throughout  God's  creation  the  reign  of  uni- 
versal law.  God  governs  the  universe  in  all  its  depart- 
ments according  to  certain  fixed  and  uniform  laws.  This 
universe  may  be  subdivided  into  the  material  or  phys- 
ical, the  mental  or  intellectual,  and  the  moral  or  spiritual. 
That  the  material  universe  is  governed  by  or  according 
to  law  is  universally  recognized.  Men  understand  that 
if  they  violate  these  laws  they  suffer  the  consequences. 
They  understand,  moreover,  that  the  sin  of  a  moment 
may  be  followed  by  an  unending  penalty.  If  a  man 
foolishly  or  thoughtlessly  puts  his  limb  under  the  wheel 
of  the  coming  locomotive,  it  is  but  a  moment  until  his 


234  DISCITSSIONS  IN  THBOLOGf. 

limb  is  gone  and  he  is  lame  for  life.  He  does  not  blamo 
the  author  of  nature  and  its  laws  because  the  violation 
of  law  is  here  followed  by  penalty,  or  because  the  sin  of 
a  moment  may  be  followed  by  a  life-long  penalty.  He 
recognizes  that  he  is  responsible  for  what  he  suffers. 
And  so,  too,  the  mental  or  intellectual  world  is  governed 
according  to  certain  laws  that  are  well  defined  and  easily 
discoverable,  and  all  systems  of  education  are  designed 
to  develop  the  human  mind  in  accordance  with  these 
laws.  Here,  also,  the  violation  of  law  is  inevitably  fol- 
lowed by  its  penalty.  Nor  does  he  who  violates  the  laws 
of  mind  say  that  it  is  Grod  punishing  him  when  he  suffers 
the  consequences  of  his  own  violation  of  law. 

In  like  manner  the  moral  or  spiritual  world  is  gov- 
erned uniformly  by  certain  fixed  and  unalterable  laws. 
These  laws  are  plainly  revealed,  well  defined,  and  easily 
discoverable.  If  we  violate  these  laws  we  must  here  as 
elsewhere  suffer  the  consequences  and  pay  the  penalty. 
Not  always  do  we  suffer  the  full  consequences  of  violated 
moral  law  at  once — the  infliction  of  penalty  in  part  or  in 
whole  may  be  reserved  to  a  future  state.  "  Because  sen- 
tence against  an  evil  work  is  not  executed  speedily,  there- 
fore the  heart  of  the  sons  of  men  is  fully  set  in  them  to  do 
evil."  But  while  men  who  violate  the  laws  of  the  ma- 
terial world  and  the  laws  of  mind,  and  then  suffer  the 
inevitable  consequences  of  violated  law,  do  not  say  that 
it  is  God  that  is  punishing  them,  but  recognize  the  fact 
that  they  are  virtually  punishing  themselves;  yet, 
strangely  enough,  when  they  come  to  suffer  the  conse- 


FtJTtTRE  AND  ETERNAL  PUNISHMENT.  235 

quences  of  violated  moral  law,  they  speak  as  if  it  was 
God  that  was  punishing  them,  as  if  their  punishment  was 
now  taken  from  without  the  realm  of  uniform  and  inev- 
itable law  and  made  to  depend  entirely  upon  the  arbi- 
trary will  of  God.  It  is  not  so ;  but  the  moral  world  is 
under  the  reign  of  universal  law  in  identically  the  same 
sense  as  are  the  material  and  mental  worlds,  and  the  future 
and  eternal  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  as  infallibly  de- 
termined by  the  laws  of  moral  character  and  of  the  mor- 
al world,  as  are  the  penalties  that  follow  the  violation  of 
law  in  the  world  of  mind  or  the  world  of  matter.  Ev- 
ery man  is  his  own  punisher. 

Among  the  laws  that  are  to  be  found  alike  in  the 
physical,  the  intellectual,  and  the  moral  world  is  one  of 
sowing  and  reaping.  And  the  law  of  sowing  and  reap- 
ing is  this:  (1)  that  we  reap  what  we  sow,  and  (2)  we 
reap  more  than  we  sow.  As  certain  as  he  who  sows 
wheat  reaps  wheat,  or  who  sows  thorns  and  briers  reaps 
the  same — as  certain  as  he  whose  mind  in  youth  is  rightly 
trained  and  filled  with  pure  and  ennobling  thoughts  will 
reap  the  fruit  thereof  in  mature  and  later  life,  or  if 
poisoned  with  corrupting  thoughts  and  vicious  influences 
must  reap  the  terrible  and  vicious  harvest  thereof—just 
so  certain  is  it  in  the  moral  and  spiritual  world  that 
whatsoever  a  man  soweth  in  this  life,  that  shall  he  also 
reap  in  the  life  to  come;  "he  that  soweth  to  the  flesh 
shall  of  the  flesh  reap  corruption ;  ho  that  soweth  to  the 
Spirit  shall  of  the  Spirit  reap  life  everlasting."  And  as 
the  physical  and  mental  harvest  is,  or  may  be,  a  hundred- 


256  1)IS0U8SI0NS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

fold  greater  than  the  sowing,  so  it  will  be  in  perfect 
keeping  with  God's  universal  law  if  the  harvest  in  eter- 
nity shall  be  far  greater  than  the  sowing  in  time.  This 
life  is  the  seed  time ;  eternity  is  the  harvest.  The  sinner 
in  eternity  will  reap  nothing  but  the  fruit  of  his  own 
sowing  here.  He  makes  his  own  character  and  fixes  his 
own  destiny,  and  reaps  his  own  sowing. 

The  ground  of  the  sinner's  punishment,  therefore, 
should  not  be  made  to  rest  upon  the  arbitrary  will  of  God, 
but  rather  upon  his  own  willful  violation  of  moi"al  law,  by 
virtue  of  which  he  becomes  his  own  punisher,  reaping  only 
what  he  has  sown.  The  time  was  when  God  was  not  only 
represented  as  Himself  punishing  the  sinner,  but  this  pun- 
ishment was  represented  as  if  it  were  vindictive — as  if 
God  were  punishing  sinners  simply  or  chiefly  because  they 
were  His  enemies  and  He  was  angry  with  them  and  now 
had  them  in  His  power.  Such  a  presentation  of  the 
character  of  the  Divine  Being  could  but  excite  repulsion 
in  rational  minds.  The  punishment  of  the  sinner  is  in  no 
sense  vindictive,  but  it  is  retributive  and  vindicatory.  It 
is  only  such  as  moral  government  demands  and  such  as 
is  necessary  to  maintain  moral  law  and  to  uphold  the 
authority  of  God,  the  moral  Governor  of  the  universe. 
Punishment  is  vindictive  when  it  is  inflicted  as  a  matter 
of  personal  revenge ;  it  is  vindicatory  when  it  is  inflicted 
by  a  Governor  in  the  interests  of  law  and  government, 
and  such  alone  is  God's  punishment  of  the  sinners. 

But  it  is  objected  that  eternal  punishment  is  too  severe 
a  penalty  for  the  sins  of  this  short  life.    To  this  we  re- 


FUTURE  AND  ETERNAL  PUNISHMENT.  237 

ply,  first,  that  eternity,  the  time-element,  is  not  an  attri- 
bute of  punishment  but  of  the  life  of  the  person  punished. 
If  a  man  is  placed  in  the  penitentiary  for  life,  and  lives 
but  ten  minutes,  ho  has  paid  the  penalty  in  full ;  if  he 
lives  a  year,  ten  yeare,  fifty  years,  a  hundred  years,  in- 
deed forever,  he  does  nothing  more  than  pay  the  penalty 
— ^that  is,  the  time-element  is  not,  strictly  speaking,  an  at- 
tribute of  punishment  but  of  life.  Nor  is  this  a  distinc- 
tion without  a  diflPerence.  For  if  it  be  said  that  it  amounts 
to  the  same  thing  in  the  end,  we  reply  that  it  is  nowhere 
said  in  the  Bible  that  the  sins  of  this  short  life  merit  an 
eternity  of  punishment.  It  may  be  true  for  aught  we 
know,  but  if  it  is,  the  Scriptures  do  not  affirm  it — that 
temporal  sinning  deserves  eternal  punishment.  Con- 
tinued sin  is  the  ground  of  continued  punishment ;  eter- 
nal sin  and  eternal  sinning  are  alone  the  ground  of  eter- 
nal punishment.  The  sinner  is  punished  eternally  not 
because  the  sins  of  this  short  life  merit  an  eternity  of 
punishment,  but  because  he  is  an  immortal  being  and 
continues  to  be  a  sinner  and  to  sin  eternally. 

But,  it  may  be  replied,  although  it  be  admitted  that  a 
sinner's  punishment  is  eternal  only  because  he  remains 
eternally  a  sinner,  yet  it  amounts  to  the  same  thing  in 
the  end,  seeing  that  his  being  a  sinner  throughout  this 
short  life  virtually  neoc  Hates  his  being  a  sinner  forever,, 
since  it  will  be  impossible  for  him  ever  to  change  his 
character  after  life's  probation  has  ended.  To  meet  this 
objection  we  must  ask  and  answer  this  question :  Is  it 
reconcilable  with  infinite  justice  to  make  the  eternal  dos- 


238  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 


tiny  of  an  immortal  soul  to  depend  upon  a  limited  proba-  j 

tion  ?  It  is,  we  reply,  if  the  conditions  of  the  probation 
are  favorable,  and  if  the  destiny  is  determined  by  char- 
acter and  proportioned  to  guilt.  If  there  is  to  be  any 
such  thing  as  creaturely  holiness  in  God's  universe,  there 
must  be  a  moral  probation ;  and  if  there  is  to  be  any 
moral  probation  at  all,  it  must  (1)  be  limited,  (2)  must 
involve  the  possibility  of  sinning,  (3)  must  have  two  final 
issues,  and  (4)  must  be  confirmed  by  rewards  and  pun- 
ishments. A  probation  that  should  issue  in  another  pro- 
bation would  be  no  probation  at  all.  To  make  holiness 
possible  necessitates  making  sin  jjossible — to  make  sin 
impossible  would  be  to  make  holiness  impossible.  If 
holiness  has  no  reward  and  sin  no  punishment,  there 
can  be  no  incentive  to  righteousness.  The  only  holiness 
possible  without  a  moi*al  probation  would  be  a  necessi- 
tated holiness,  a  holiness  divinely  produced  by  the  power 
of  God  without  the  co-operation  of  the  moral  free  agent ; 
and  such  holiness  as  this  could  have  no  moral  virtue  in 
it.  All  creatures  would  then  be  necessarily  holy.  This 
would  turn  men  into  mere  machines,  would  make  divine 
government  to  be  merely  manipulating  moral  machines, 
and  this  would  be  to  rob  God's  moral  universe  of  its  chief 
glory,  of  all  that  dignifies  and  ennobles  it.  Probationary 
holiness  is  the  only  holiness  that  can  really  glorify  God  j 
and  this  cannot  be  developed  except  under  conditions 
that  involve  the  possibility  of  sinning,  the  rewarding  of 
holiness,  and  the  punishing  of  guilt. 

But  surely  the   Divine   glory  cannot   be  promoted 


FUTUBE  AND  ETERNAL  PUNISHMENT.  239 

by  any  thing  that  involves  injustice  to  the  creature. 
Are  the  conditions  surrounding  human  probation,  then, 
favorable  to  a  happy  issue  ?  Are  they  such  as  render  it 
easily  possible  for  every  one  to  do  right  and  to  be  saved 
who  desires  to  do  so  ?  We  answer.  Yes.  Such  was  the 
probation  of  Adam,  and  such  also  is  the  probation  of 
fallen  men;  for,  though  fallen  men  are  by  nature  pos- 
sessed of  a  bias  to  sin,  yet  this  bias  to  evil  is  so  counter- 
balanced by  the  effects  of  the  atonement  that  it  makes 
their  probation  just  as  favorable  to  a  happy  issue  as  the 
original  probation  of  Adam,  which,  while  it  was  without 
original  sin,  was  yet  also  without  those  special  motives 
and  helpful  influences  that  come  from  the  atonement  of 
Christ.  So  that  a  fallen  man  has  altogether  just  as 
favorable  conditions  and  just  as  fair  opportunities  for 
salvation  as  the  unfallon  Adam  had. 

But  this  objection,  that  eternal  punishment  is  too  se- 
vere a  penalty,  is  based  on  a  false  conception  of  sin 
and  a  false  view  of  the  ground  of  punishment.  It  is 
based  on  the  idea  that  sinful  acts  are  the  whole  of  sin 
and  sinful  character  is  nothing — on  the  idea  that  the  sin- 
ner who  is  undergoing  punishment  is,  apart  from  so 
many  actual  sins  recoi*ded  against  him,  a  perfectly  pure 
and  holy  being.  It  is  based  on  the  supposition  that  the 
sinner  is  sent  to  the  abode  of  the  lost  wholly  because  ho 
has  committed  so  many  actual  sins,  and  in  no  sense  bo- 
cause  he  is  a  sinner.  But  we  will  see  that  this  is  an  en- 
tirely erroneous  view  of  sin.  An  illustration  will  best 
B^rvQ  to  show  what  is  meant. 


240  DISOTTSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

Not  long  since  a  convict  in  a  neighboring  State  who 
had  served  a  terra  of  years  in  the  penitentiary  for  steal- 
ing some  money,  upon  being  discharged,  went  openly  and 
digged  up  his  stolen  treasure.  He  made  no  secret  of  the 
fact  that  it  was  the  money  for  the  stealing  of  which  he 
had  been  imprisoned.  The  owner  came  and  claimed  the 
money.  The  convict  refused  to  give  it  up,  saying  he  had 
paid  the  penalty  for  his  theft  and  it  was  his  money. 
Whose  money  was  it?  Why  plainly  the  property  of  the 
man  from  whom  it  had  been  stolen.  But,  be  this  as  it 
may,  one  thing  is  certain — that  convict  was  as  guilty  a 
sinner,  and  as  much  a  thief  at  heart,  the  day  he  came  out 
of  the  penitentiary  as  he  was  the  day  he  went  in.  The 
serving  of  penalty  in  itself  alone  does  not  take  away 
guilt ;  it  does  not  even  touch  it.  The  convict  in  question 
spent  three  years  in  the  penitentiary  and  came  out  as 
guilty  in  character  as  he  went  in.  Had  he  remained 
there  ten  years,  or  fifty,  or  a  hundred — or  forever,  so  far 
as  that  matter  may  be — it  would  have  been  the  same 
way.  The  enduring  of  punishment  and  the  serving  of 
penalty  leaves  a  criminal  as  guilty  in  person  and  charac- 
ter as  it  found  him.  Had  the  paying  of  penalty  wiped 
out  the  stain  and  guilt  of  sin  from  this  criminal's  char- 
acter, it  would  have  left  him  an  honest  man,  and  he  would 
in  that  case  have  voluntarily  restored  the  money  that  was 
not  his  own.  Instead,  however,  of  its  leaving  him  an  hon- 
est man,  his  character  had  rather  been  increasing  in  sin  and 
criminality  while  ho  was  paying  the  penalty  of  his  act 
of  theft,  and  he  came  out  a  worse  man  than  ho  went  in. 


FUTURE  AND  ETERNAL  PUNISHMENT.  241 

If  such  a  discharged  convict  does  not  repeat  his  former 
act  of  theft  it  will  be  because  no  opportunity  to  do  so 
presents  itself,  or  because  he  is  afraid  of  punishment,  and 
not  because  he  is  not  a  thief  at  heart  and  a  criminal  in 
chai*acter. 

This  whole  objection,  therefore,  against  the  Scripture 
doctrine  of  future  punishment  in  view  of  its  duration,  is 
based  on  the  idea  that  a  limited  amount  of  punishment 
such  as  would  be  the  proper  penalty  for  certain  sins,  would 
leave  the  individual  no  longer  a  sinner  but  sinless  and 
holy  in  character.  And  this  grows  out  of  a  superficial 
and  erroneous  view  of  sin,  viz.,  that  sin  is  a  voluntary 
and  actual  transgression  and  never  has  any  other  mean- 
ing— that  actual  sin  is  the  whole  of  sin.  We  say,  nay, 
it  is  not  the  half  of  sin.  Acts  of  sin  are  one  thing — they 
may  be  numbered  and  recorded  against  a  man.  But  an 
act  of  sin,  voluntarily  committed,  does  not  end  in  itself, 
but  leaves  behind  it  guilt,  or  personal  criminality,  that 
inheres  to  the  character  of  the  wrong-doer.  Eepeated 
acts  of  sin  leave  behind  them  the  habitus  of  sin.  This 
creates  sinful  character.  Sin  is  not  simply  an  act,  it  is 
an  attribute  of  character.  Acts  of  sin  there  are  which 
must  be  taken  into  account  and  dealt  with ;  but  there  is 
also  the  guilt  of  sin,  the  habitus,  the  power,  the  domin- 
ion of  sin,  sinful  character — these  are  the  features  of  sin 
that  make  the  punishment  of  sinners  to  be  something 
more  than  merely  dealing  with  actual  sins.  Acts  of  sin 
are  one  thing,  and  sinful  character  is  another,  and  a  far 
more  serious  result,  or  feature,  of  sin.  Human  law  deals 
16 


242  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

witJi  man  chiefly  as  an  actual  transgressor — it  deals  with 
acts  of  sin  more  than  with  sinful  character.  But  when 
we  remember  that  all  criminals  who  have  sei-ved  a  pen- 
alty for  crime  under  law  are  forever  thereafter  disfran- 
chised and  denied  recognition  as  citizens,  we  see  that 
in  an  important  sense  even  human  law  says  that  there  is 
sinful  character  back  of  sinful  acts  and  that  when  the 
sinful  act  has  been  punished  sinful  character  remains — 
and  it  virtually  makes  the  punishment  of  sinful  or  crim- 
inal character  life-long,  which  is,  so  far  as  human  law  is 
concerned,  eternal.  Divine  law  and  government  in  the 
same  way,  and  for  a  stronger  reason,  must  deal  not  sim- 
ply with  acts  of  sin,  but  with  sinful  character.  It  pun- 
ishes not  sins  merely,  but  the  sinner.  Nor  does  this  moan 
that  we  are  separating  sin  from  sinful  acts,  as  if  there 
could  be  sinful  character  without  antecedent  sinful  acts. 
"We  have  already  shown  how  sinful  character  grows  out 
of  antecedent  sinful  acts  and  volitions. 

Is  it  said,  therefore,  that  ten,  fifty,  a  hundred  yeai*s  of 
existence  in  the  abode  of  the  lost,  is  sufficient  punish- 
ment for  the  sins  of  this  short  life?  Sufficient  in  what 
sense  ?  we  ask.  Sufficient  to  atone  for  the  sins  commit- 
ted ?  Sufficient  to  pay  the  price  of  the  crimes,  as  the 
convict  thought  he  had  justly  paid  for  his  stolen 
money?  Sufficient  to  wipe  out  the  stains  of  sin,  thus 
leaving  those  just  discharged  sinless  and  holy  in  charac- 
ter? If  serving  penalty  and  enduring  punishment  has 
this  effect,  then  they  will  be  ready  for  heaven  at  once,  and 
no  obstacle  would  be  in  the  way  of  God's  transporting  to 


FUTURE  AND  ETERNAL  PUNISHMENT.  243 

heaven  at  onee  these  discharged  convicts  of  hell  whoso 
entire  sanctification  had  been  accomplished  so  effectually 
by  purgatorial  fires,  though  in  this  fair  world  of  moi-al 
probation  they  lived  and  died  confirmed  sinners!  If, 
however,  serving  penalty  does  not  touch  moral  character, 
but  leaves  the  criminal  at  the  end  of  any  period,  long  or 
short,  as  guilty  and  sinful  in  character  as  when  he  died 
and  went  to  the  abode  of  the  lost — if  this  bo  the  case, 
what  is  to  be  done  with  such  a  one  when  he  has  "  served 
his  time"  out  among  the  lost?  He  cannot  be  carried  to 
heaven,  because  he  is  as  much  a  sinner  as  he  ever  was. 

If  now  he  was  sent  to  hell  because  he  was  a  sinner, 
and  possessed  a  sinful  character,  and  not  simply  and  only 
because  he  had  committed  so  many  specific  acts  of  sin, 
then  there  is  the  same  reason  for  his  continuing  there 
that  there  was  for  his  going  there  in  the  first  instance; 
because,  as  we  have  seen,  he  is  as  guilty  in  character,  if 
not  more  confirmed  in  guilt,  at  the  end  of  any  given  pe- 
riod than  he  was  when  he  first  entered  the  abode  of  the 
lost.  If  this  life  is  a  probation,  and  the  future  and  eter- 
nal life  its  final  issue,  then,  if  there  is  any  reason  for  a 
lost  soul  being  sent  to  perdition,  there  is  the  same  reason 
that  he  should  continue  thei'e  as  long  as  his  existence 
shall  last.  I  know  it  has  been  affinned  by  teachers  of 
Christian  doctrine  that  so  exceedingly  sinful  is  any  and 
all  sin  against  an  infinitely  holy  God  that  it  merits  an 
infinite  punishment,  and  for  this  reason  the  punishment 
of  sin  is  eternal.  But  I  do  not  find  this  given  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures  as  the  reason  of  the  eternity  of  future 


244  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

punishment.  Hcnco  I  do  not  bolievo  it  the  proper  way 
to  meet  the  objection  to  the  Scripture  doctrine  now  un- 
der consideration.  The  sinner  at  death  goes  to  the  abode 
of  the  lost,  because  he  is  a  sinner  and  because  his  sinful 
character  properly  places  him  there.  He  is  an  immortal 
being.  His  punishment  is  eternal  because,  probation  be- 
ing over,  he  remains,  and  must  remain,  eternally  a  sin- 
ner. When  and  how  and  by  what  means  could  he  cease 
to  become  a  sinner  ?  Can  he  by  any  possible  means  be- 
come a  saint  in  perdition  ?  If  so,  God  will  not  only  do 
nothing  to  keep  him  from  it,  but  will  take  him  out  of 
there  and  transport  him  to  heaven  the  very  moment  he 
becomes  free  from  sin  and  holy  in  character — and  that  re- 
gardless of  whether  he  has  "  served  his  time  out "  or  not. 
But  how  absurd  and  preposterous  the  idea!  And  yet 
the  position  of  him  who  argues  against  the  future  and 
eternal  punishment  of  the  wicked,  necessarily  involves 
this  very  absurdity  if  it  be  clearly  analyzed. 

If  sin,  therefore,  be  nothing  but  an  act  of  transgres- 
sion and  not  also  an  attribute  of  character,  and  if  the  serv- 
ing of  penalty  discharges  the  sinner  entirely  from  his 
debt  of  sin  and  leaves  him  sinless  and  holy,  then  I  say 
they  are  right  who  affirm  that  it  is  unjust  to  punish  a 
sinner  eternally  for  the  sins  of  this  short  life — he  should 
in  justice  be  punished  only  to  the  extent  of  the  demerit 
or  ill  desert  of  his  sin  and  then  discharged — and  being 
then  sinless  (and  that  moans  holy)  he  should  be  sent  to 
heaven  where  all  holy  beings  are  and  properly  belong. 
But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  sin  be  not  simply  an  act  but 


FUTURE  AND  BTBRNAL  PUNISHMENT.  245 

also  an  attribute  of  character,  and  if  moral  government 
must  deal  not  merely  with  punishing  sins  but  with  guilty 
sinners  as  subjects — and  if  the  serving  of  a  limited  pen- 
alty leaves  sinnere  just  as  guilty  as  they  were  when  their 
penalty  began — then  the  Scripture  doctrine  must  be  right 
so  far  as  human  reason  can  pronounce  on  its  justness,  and 
the  sinner's  punishment  must  be  co-extensive  with  his 
continued  existence  as  a  sinner. 

Again  we  remark  that  the  very  existence  of  moral 
government  demands  the  future  and  eternal  punishment 
of  the  wicked.  There  can  be  neither  a  moral  Governor 
nor  moral  government  unless  sin  be  punished.  There  are 
five  things  that  necessarily  stand  or  fall  together — viz., 
a  governor,  government,  laws,  punishment  for  the  viola- 
tion of  law,  and  adequate  punishment  for  violated  law. 
There  can  be  no  governor  without  a  government,  and  no 
government  without  laws,  and  laws  mean  nothing  unless 
their  violation  be  punished,  and  punishment  fails  unless 
it  is  adequate.  Punishment  is  said  to  be  adequate  when 
it  secures  the  maintenance  of  law  and  government,  and 
this  is  the  chief  object  had  in  view  by  legislative  bodies 
in  affixing  penalties  to  crime.  If  punishment  be  found 
to  be  inadequate,  its  severity  is  increased.  Supreme  wis- 
dom would  attach  such  a  penalty  to  each  violation  of  law, 
no  greater  and  no  less,  as  is  at  once  perfectly  adequate 
and  infallibly  just.  No  punishment,  in  order  to  be  ade- 
quate, needs  to  be  unjustly  severe ;  but  unless  it  bo  ade- 
quate, government  cannot  exist.  Suppose  the  penalty 
attached  to  murder,  theft,  and  arson,  were  a  day's  im- 


246  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

prisonment,  or  a  fine  of  a  few  cents,  it  would  be  inade- 
quate, and  government  would  be  turned  into  anarchy. 

There  are  those  who  treat  the  subject  of  the  futui*e  and 
eternal  punishment  of  the  wicked  as  if  it  might  be  mo<l- 
ified  to  any  degree  or  entirely  abolished  by  the  arbitrary 
will  of  Grod,  if  he  so  chose,  without  thereby  affecting  in 
the  least  the  nature  and  security  of  moral  government. 
It  is  not  so ;  for  punishment,  if  inadequate,  utterly  fails 
of  its  end,  and  if  there  is  no  punishment  there  can  be  no 
law,  and  if  no  law,  then  no  government,  and  if  no  gov- 
ernment, then  no  governor  and  no  God.  God's  very  ex- 
istence as  a  moral  Governor,  therefore,  depends  not  only 
upon  the  existence  of  moral  laws,  but  also  upon  the  ade- 
quate punishment  of  all  violated  moral  law.  For  the 
same  reason  there  could  exist  no  moral  government,  with 
its  rewards  for  the  good,  unless  there  should  be  punish- 
ment of  the  wicked.  So  far  then  from  the  future  pun- 
ishment of  the  wicked  being  a  thing  that  could  be  mod- 
ified or  obliterated  by  the  arbitrary  will  of  God,  we  see 
that  the  existence  of  God  as  a  Governor,  and  the  exist- 
ence of  moral  government  with  its  heaven  for  the  good 
and  holy,  necessarily  involves  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked. 

The  real  design  of  punishment  in  the  organization  of 
government,  both  human  and  divine,  is  the  prevention 
of  crime,  and  not  primarily  the  punishing  of  it.  The 
prison  is  one  institution  in  the  economy  of  government 
which  serves  its  highest  end  when  it  has  no  one  in  it,  or 
rather  when  no  one  is  found  worthy  to  go  in  it.     But  a 


FUTURE  AND  ETERNAL  PUNISHMENT.  247 

probationary  system  which  should  have  no  punishment 
for  sin  in  it  would  be  far  less  favorable  to  the  produc- 
tion of  holiness  than  one  that  should  have  future  pun- 
ishment in  it.  Indeed  a  probationary  system  devoid  of 
all  punishment  for  sin  would  be  utterly  powerless  to 
prevent  sin  and  to  secure  righteousness.  If,  then,  under 
moral  probation  as  it  now  exists,  involving  the  future 
and  eternal  punishment  of  the  wicked,  so  many  are 
found  who  fail  to  do  right  and  to  become  holy,  what 
would  be  the  effect  on  the  development  of  holy  char- 
acter in  the  race,  to  abolish  punishment  entirely  from 
the  moral  system,  or  even  materially  to  modify  it? 
Would  it  not  be  to  make  sinners  of  all  men?  Such 
would  be  the  unfailing  tendency,  if  not  the  inevitable 
result.  We  see  then  that  not  only  is  punishment  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  the  existence  of  all  government,  but 
both  the  design  and  the  result  of  punishment  in  the 
economy  of  moral  government  is  to  produce  the  min- 
imum of  sin  and  the  maximum  of  holiness. 

We  have  said  that  punishment,  in  order  to  be  adequate, 
need  never  be,  and  will  never  be,  unjustly  severe.  Wo 
go  further  and  affirm  that  the  future  punishment  of  the 
wicked  will  be  absolutely  just.  No  lost  soul,  from  the 
most  wicked  to  the  least  wicked,  will  bo  punished  one 
iota  more  than  it  justly  deserves.  Our  faith  in  the  ab- 
solute justice  of  God  is  as  great  as  our  faith  in  his  exist- 
ence. If  God  bo  not  absolutely  just,  I  have  no  God  at 
all — there  is  no  God.  I  can  more  easily  bo  an  atheist 
than  I  can  believe  God  to  bo  unjust.     I  would  sooner  bo- 


248  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY, 

lieve  the  whole  Christian  Church  to  be  in  error  in  its  in- 
terpretation of  the  Bible  concerning  this  and  all  other 
doctrines,  than  to  think  that  God  could  bo  unjust — than 
to  think  it  possible  for  Him  to  punish,  or  to  allow  to  be 
punished,  one  single  soul  more  than  it  justly  desei'ved. 
Does  any  man,  therefore,  pronouncing  the  Church  doc- 
trine concerning  future  punishment  unjust,  say  that  he 
is  willing  to  meet  the  issues  of  eternity  and  receive  his 
just  rewards  for  the  deeds  done  in  this  life,  I  say  to  him 
unhesitatingly  he  may  be  assured  that  he  is  going  to  re- 
ceive in  the  future  life  no  greater  punishment  than  is  ab- 
solutely just.  But  I  also  say  to  him :  "  Be  not  deceived, 
God  is  not  mocked  ;  for  whatsoever  a  man  soweth,  that 
shall  he  also  reap."  Suppose  such  a  one,  with  a  view  to 
the  future  life,  were  to  begin  to  shape  his  character  and 
conduct  here  so  that  by  receiving  his  just  deserts  at  the 
judgment  day  his  future  lot  would  be  a  happy  one — he 
proposing  to  demand  justice,  not  mercy  or  grace — what 
would  his  life  here  be  ?  Would  it  not  be  very  much  what 
the  Bible  defines  a  Christian  life  to  be  ?  We  say  it  would 
have  to  be  not  only  this,  but  even  more  unblamable  and 
holy,  as  no  Christian  hopes  to  get  to  heaven  on  the 
ground  of  justice  but  only  through  the  great  grace  and 
mercy  of  God.  And  what  does  this  fact  signify  ?  Why, 
plainly  that  this  argument  of  the  unregenerate  world,  di- 
rected against  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment,  is  pre- 
sented not  in  the  interest  of  holy  living  in  this  life  or  of 
justice  in  the  life  to  come,  nor  yet  to  rescue  the  true  doc- 
trine from  the  misrepresentations  of  a  false  theology,  but 


FUTURE  AND  ETERNAL  PUNISHMENT.  249 

rather  in  the  interests  of  a  life  of  sin,  to  furnish  some  pre- 
text and  ground  for  indulging  the  carnal  appetites,  and  to 
ease  a  guilty  conscience,  by  making  it  to  appear  that  the 
whole  doctrine  is  unjust  and  therefore  without  founda- 
tion. It  is  simply  this  and  nothing  more.  But  still  wo 
meet  the  charge  that  the  future  and  eternal  punishment 
of  the  wicked  is  unjust,  by  saying  that  if  it  is,  God  will 
certainly  not  inflict  it  j  for  nothing  that  is  unjust  in  any 
degree  can  possibly  occur  in  his  administration. 

But  who  is  to  determine  what  is  just  and  what  is  un- 
just in  the  matter  of  punishment?  The  sinner?  or  the 
theologian?  Neither.  But  God.  Absolute  justice  is 
surely  located  somewhere — ^and  at  the  judgment  day 
there  will  be  no  disagreement  about  what  is  just.  Sin- 
ners and  theologians  will  alike  then  see  light  in  God's 
light.  The  sinner  will  then,  stripped  of  all  selfish  rea- 
sons for  a  warped  and  biased  judgment,  pronounce  just 
whatever  God  says  is  just,  and  when  his  soul  is  sent  to 
hell,  his  own  judgment,  as  well  as  God's  righteous  law, 
will  approve  it  well ;  and  the  theologian,  if  he  finds  that 
he  has  erred  in  interpreting  God's  revealed  will,  will  re- 
joice in  any  mitigation  of  the  sinner's  doom.  But  there  is 
not  the  slightest  probability  that  the  Christian  Church 
universal  is  wrong  in  its  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  and 
the  sinner  who  spends  his  time  and  energy  criticising 
the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment,  rather  than  in  try- 
ing to  live  so  that  he  may  inherit  eternal  life,  and  in 
trying  to  do  what  he  ought  to  do  whether  there  is  any 
hereafter  or  not,  is  certainly  guilty  of  a  folly  that  hard- 


250  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOOY. 

ly  justifies  his  appealing  to  reason  and  justice  in  all 
things. 

Again,  we  believe  the  doctrine  of  the  future  punish- 
ment of  the  wicked  has  been  subjected  to  needless  criticism 
in  that,  as  sometimes  presented,  all  the  lost  are  made  to 
be  punished  alike  and  to  be  equally  miserable.  If  hell 
be  a  place  whose  torment  and  misery  comes  from  sim- 
ply being  there,  and  not  from  a  guilty  conscience  and 
from  evil  character,  then  it  follows  that  all  who  are  con- 
signed to  the  abode  of  the  lost  are  equally  miserable — 
the  youth  who  dies  impenitent  six  months  after  he 
reaches  an  age  of  moral  accountability,  and  the  sinner 
who  lives  for  threescore  and  ten  years  and  has  a  thou- 
sand opportunities  to  repent,  but  rejects  them  all  and  dies 
hardened  and  impenitent,  one  of  the  worst  of  criminals. 
But  if  this  view  of  hell  be  erroneous — if  the  true  doc- 
trine be  that  the  miseries  and  torments  of  the  lost  grow 
out  of  their  guilt  and  not  simply  out  of  their  being  in 
the  abode  of  the  lost,  and  that  the  misery  of  each  soul  is 
exactly  proportioned  to  its  guilt — then  there  will  be  as 
many  degrees  in  miseiy  represented  among  the  lost  as 
there  will  be  degrees  in  sin  and  guilt.  This  life  is  the 
seed-time  of  which  eternity  is  the  harvest,  and  every  lost 
sinner  will  simply  reap  in  the  future  life  the  fruit  of  his 
own  sowing  in  this  life. 

But  it  is  said  that  justice  demands  that  the  lost  should 
have  a  second  probation.  Let  us  consider  this  matter. 
Suppose  our  allotted  threescore  yeara  and  ten  be  ckvided 
into  seven  successive  decades,  or  periods  of  ton  years 


PUnniB  AND  ETERNAL  PUNISHMENT.  261 

each.  The  first  ten  years,  let  us  say,  is  the  period  of 
irresponsible  childhood.  The  remaining  sixty  years,  in- 
stead of  constituting  one  long  probation,  may  be  divided 
into  six  successive  probations  of  ten  years  each.  This  is 
perfectly  legitimate.  Now  let  us  see  how  moral  free 
agents  stand  these  successive  probations,  the  last  of 
which  brings  them  to  their  end.  Antecedently  wo  would 
say  that  during  the  first  probation,  from  ten  to  twenty, 
few  if  any  will  repent,  because  the  pleasures  of  sin  are 
fascinating  and  death  is  very  far  off;  during  the  second 
probation,  from  twenty  to  thirty  years  of  age,  a  few  of 
the  wise  and  prudent  will  make  their  calling  and  election 
sure  by  repentance  and  faith  ;  during  the  third,  from 
thirty  to  forty  years  of  age,  a  goodly  number  will  seek 
salvation;  during  the  fourth,  a  still  larger  number;  dur- 
ing the  fifth,  from  fifty  to  sixty,  a  yet  larger  number ; 
and  during  the  sixth  and  last,  from  sixty  to  seventy, 
every  remaining  soul  that  believes  in  moral  probation 
and  in  a  future  life,  would  without  fail  make  sure  of  his 
salvation,  knowing  that  his  probation  would  now  end. 
This  is  the  way  we  would  think  antecedently  that  hu- 
man nature  and  moral  free  agents  would  act  under  such 
circumstances.  But  do  wo  find  that  the  facts  confirm 
this  ?  By  no  means.  They  rather  confirm  the  oppc^ito. 
From  one-half  to  two-thirds  of  all  those  who  are  saved, 
are  saved  during  the  first  probation,  from  ten  to  twenty, 
the  period  during  which  wo  would  naturally  think  very 
few  would  be  saved.  From  one-half  to  two-thirds  of  the 
remainder  of  the  saved,  are  saved  between  twenty  and 


252  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

thirty  ;  and  from  one-half  to  two-thirds  of  the  remainder 
from  thirty  to  forty.  From  forty  to  fifty  years  of  age, 
it  is  rare  for  men  to  profess  faith  in  Christ;  from  fifty 
to  sixty,  during  the  fifth  probation,  not  one  in  a  hundred 
is  ever  saved ;  and  from  sixty  to  seventy,  the  last  pro- 
bation, the  period  during  which  we  had  a  right  to  think 
that  every  sane  moral  free  agent  who  believed  in  a  fut- 
ure life  and  was  unsaved,  would  most  surely  repent  and 
believe,  not  one  in  a  thousand  is  ever  saved  !  Statistics 
will  corroborate  these  facts. 

Now  suppose  we  grant  another  period  of  ten  years  for 
a  seventh  probation,  from  seventy  to  eighty,  how  many 
additional  ones  think  you  would  be  saved  ?  Not  one  in 
ten  thousand.  But  suppose  we  place  this  last  probation 
beyond  the  grave,  will  it  change  the  result  ?  Not  at  all, 
even  though  God  should  himself  impose  no  impediment 
in  the  way  of  the  sinner's  repentance.  God  may  justly, 
however,  and  will,  give  no  positive  and  supernatural  aid 
in  that  future  probation,  His  special  supernatural  influ- 
ences being  limited  to  this  life.  But  if  in  this  life  where 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  wooing,  and  ministers  were  preach- 
ing and  friends  were  pleading  and  Christians  were  pray- 
ing— influences  without  which  no  man  would  ever  be 
saved  even  in  this  world — if  in  this  life  with  all  these 
aids  to  repentance  the  sinner  remained  impenitent  to  the 
last,  is  it  not  perfectly  gratuitous  to  suppose  that  such  a 
one  would  repent  and  bo  saved  in  the  other  world  even  if 
probation  continued  there.  For,  remember,  there  could 
be  no  churches  there,  no  Bible  there,  no  pleading  preach- 


FUTURE  AND  ETERNAL  PUNISHMENT.  253 

ere  and  praying  friends  there,  no  wooing  Spirit  there — 
simply  continued  probation,  with  its  further  opportunity 
to  repent  and  bo  saved. 

But,  some  one  perchance  interposes  and  says,  after  a 
sinner  has  tasted  the  pains  and  torments  of  the  lost,  then 
he  will  certainly,  if  another  probation  be  allowed,  repent 
and  be  saved.  So  indeed  we  would  reason.  And  on  ex- 
actly the  same  grounds  we  would  say  that  a  man  who 
has  once  served  a  term  in  the  penitentiary  would  of  all 
men  be  certain  so  to  live  in  the  future  that  he  would 
never  get  there  again.  But  here  again,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  human  nature  does  not  do  as  we  would  antecedently 
suppose,  but  quite  the  opposite.  Facts  pi*ove  that  if  a 
man  has  once  served  a  term  in  the  penitentiary  the 
chances  are  about  two  out  of  three  that  he  will  get  back 
there  if  he  has  a  chance  to  repeat  his  crime  or  commit  a 
new  one.  A  larger  proportion  of  ex-convicts  are  arrested 
for  crime  than  of  any  other  class  in  society.  That  is, 
serving  a  penalty  for  crime  not  only  does  not  make  one 
a  good  man,  but  it  rather  seems  to  confirm  in  vicious 
character,  and  certain  it  is  that  it  does  not  prepai-o  one 
to  stand  successfully  any  future  moi*al  probation. 

We  sa,y  therefore  that  even  if  God  should  gi-ant  the 
lost  a  second  probation,  it  would  not  change  the  result, 
because :  (1)  The  tendency  of  human  nature  under  proba- 
tion is,  as  we  have  seen,  to  embrace  first  and  early  op- 
portunities for  salvation,  and  to  reject  later  probations ; 
(2)  the  environments  of  the  lost,  the  absence  of  all  those 
special  influences  towards  salvation  without  which  no 


254  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

one  is  saved  in  this  world,  would  render  a  second  proba- 
tion of  no  avail ;  (3)  experience  in  enduring  punishment 
and  serving  penalty  for  crime  seems  rather  to  unfit  than 
to  fit  a  man  for  standing  successfully  a  future  probation 
— seems  to  have  a  tendency  to  confirm  in  crime  rather 
than  to  remove  or  diminish  guilt. 

Having  now  shown  that  a  future  probation  could  not 
possibly  change  the  sinner's  doom,  we  are  ready  to  say 
that  we  not  only  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  a  second  pro- 
bation, but  we  believe  in  an  eternal  probation,  so  far  as  God 
is  concerned — ^that  is,  God  is  going  to  do  nothing  to  keep 
a  lost  sinner  from  becoming  a  good  and  holy  being.  It 
is  to  be  feared  that  preachers  have  too  often  opposed  this 
doctrine  of  a  future  probation  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
make  it  appear  that  God  arbitrarily,  by  an  act  of  his 
sovereign  will,  makes  human  probation  to  end  at  death, 
and  that,  but  for  this,  sinners  might  repent  and  become 
holy  in  perdition — in  other  words,  that  it  is  God  who  is 
keeping  sinners  in  their  guilt,  and  that  but  for  the  fact 
that  He  forbids  their  further  probation  they  might  all  bo- 
come  holy.  How  absurd  is  such  an  idea,  and  how  utterly 
incapable  of  defense  is  such  a  view  of  the  doctrine  of 
future  punishment !  We  repeat  that  so  far  as  God  is 
concerned  probation  lasts  forever,  in  that  He  is  not  going 
to  forbid,  or  do  any  thing  to  prevent,  a  lost  sinner  from 
becoming  holy.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  sinner's  destiny 
is  fixed  and  irretrievable  beyond  the  grave ;  but  it  makes 
a  vast  difference,  so  far  as  Christian  truth  is  concerned, 
whether  we  place  the  cause  of  his  continuance  in  sin  and 


FUTURE  AND  ETERNAL  PUNISHMENT.  255 

in  the  abode  of  the  lost,  in  the  sovereign  will  of  God  or 
in  the  sinner's  own  guilty  nature  and  sinful  character. 
The  reason  why  a  lost  sinner  will  not  and  cannot  become 
holy  is  in  himself,  in  his  own  sinful  chai*acter,  and  not  in 
the  will  of  God.  And  wo  may  not  only  say  that  God  is 
going  to  do  nothing  to  keep  a  lost  sinner  from  becoming 
holy,  but  if  he  should  by  any  chance  become  holy  (which 
is  the  most  gnvtuitous  of  suppositions)  God  will  take  him 
out  of  the  abode  of  the  lost.  Indeed,  if  our  doctrine  be 
true,  he  will  not  need  to  be  taken  out  by  sovereign 
power;  he  will  come  out  himself,  for  there  is  nothing 
but  guilt  and  sin  that  retains  him  there,  and  if  these  be 
gone,  he  can  no  longer  remain  among  the  guilty,  but  will 
seek  his  proper  place  among  sinless  and  holy  beings.  It 
is  sin,  and  nothing  but  sin,  that  makes  hell,  that  puts  a 
man  in  hell,  and  keeps  him  in  hell. 

We  therefore  conclude  that  "as  the  tree  falls,  so  it 
must  forever  lie."  And  not  only  so,  but  "as  the  tree 
leans,  so  it  will  fall  " — whether  it  be  high  or  low,  whether 
it  bo  great  or  small,  it  is  all  the  same — as  it  leans,  so  it 
will  fall.  Immortal  being,  who  may  chance  to  road  these 
lines,  which  way  arc  you  leaning  to-day  ? 


THE  INVENTION  OF  MATERIAL 
FOR  PREACHING. 


Some  yeare  ago  a  prominent  teacher  of  elocution  and 
gesture  was  giving  a  course  of  lessons  in  one  of  our  col- 
leges, and  had  awakened  much  enthusiasm  among  the 
students.  One  of  them  who  had  mastered  the  system, 
and  that  of  gesticulation  in  particular,  and  had  acquired 
marked  grace  in  action,  on  one  occasion,  while  practicing 
the  new  and  fascinating  art,  was  encountered  by  a  fellow- 
student,  and  said :  "  "Wouldn't  I  make  a  splendid  orator, 
McTyeire,  if  I  only  had  something  to  say  ?  "  This  same 
want  of  something  to  say  is  the  only  thing  in  the  way 
of  many  a  man's  becoming  an  excellent  preacher.  But 
alas !  this  want  is  fundamental  and  fatal.  There  is  noth- 
ing that  can  substitute  the  lack  of  something  to  say.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  a  man  has  abundance  of  matter,  that 
makes  atonement  for  many  faults  and  supplies  many  de- 
fects of  other  kinds.  Some  rough  and  ready  rustic  of 
an  Englishman,  with  greater  shrewdness  of  insight  than 
beauty  of  expression,  embodied  this  thought  in  a  senten- 
tious bit  of  advice  to  a  young  preacher  when  he  said : 
"  Get  chock  full  of  your  subject,  knock  out  the  bung,  and 
let  nature  caper."  That  groat  and  quaint  preacher,  Mr. 
Spurgeon,  turned  this  harsh  and  homely  saying  to  good 
account  as  the  text  of  a  quaint  and  curious  but  excellent 
17 


258  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

lecture  to  his  students.  And  what  is  here  meant  is 
usually  true.  When  a  man  really  has  something  to  say, 
the  saying  it  will  somehow  take  care  of  itself.  The  how 
is  important,  but  the  what  is  indispensable;  and  yet, 
though  indispensable,  it  is  a  far  higher  and  more  difficult 
thing.  Of  making  books  on  homiletics  there  is  no  end, 
and  the  chief  end  of  those  that  are  made  is  really  not  to 
teach  men  how  to  preach,  but  to  put  them  in  the  way  of 
inventing  suitable  and  effective  matter  for  preaching.* 
It  is  this  power  of  invention,  this  fecundity  of  thought 
that  far  more  than  any  thing  else  distinguishes  preach- 
ers from  each  other,  and  determines  the  character  and 
success  of  a  man's  ministry.  Moreover,  it  determines 
whether  preaching  shall  be  a  dull  and  intolerable  task, 
as  it  is  to  some  men,  or  the  highest  and  freest  and  glad- 
dest privilege  and  exercise  in  the  world,  as  it  is  to  othei*s. 
The  man  is  not  to  be  envied  who  is  too  conscientious  or 
too  weak  to  give  up  the  ministry,  and  yet  too  lazy  or 
too  busy  to  furnish  his  mind  with  great  and  abundant 
thought  for  preaching. 

In  this  lecture  we  shall  consider  first  the  process,  and 
secondly  the  condition  of  invention,  thirdly  helps  to  in- 
vention, and  lastly  the  Bible  as  a  source  of  material. 

I.  The  process  of  invention  in  general.  And  though 
our  terms  may  not  be  used  with  technical  exactness,  it 

*  "  Invention,  strictly  speaking,  expands  itself  over  the  whole 
field  of  rhetoric.  The  same  faculty  is  applied  to  every  thing. 
It  is  the  whole  talent,  it  is  the  whole  art."  (Vinet,  "  Homiletics," 
p.  49.) 


THE  INVENTION  OP  MATERIAL  FOR  PREACHINO.       259 

is  sufficient  if  the  moaning  be  made  clear.  If  we  ex- 
amine the  works  of  those  who  have  been  considered 
original  thinkers,  discoverers,  producers,  we  shall  find 
that  they  have  presented  us  with  views  of  the  relations 
of  things.  In  some  instances  these  views  are  true  and 
new ;  in  some  they  are  true  and  not  now ;  and  in  some 
they  are  new  and  not  true.  The  relations  that  have 
been  discovered  so  far  by  men  may  be  reduced  to  a  fairly 
definite  classification,  and  grouped  under  a  few  general 
heads.  The  law  that  makes  this  classification  and  group- 
ing possible,  and  at  the  same  time  determines  it,  is  that 
general  and  familiar  one  known  as  the  association  of 
ideas.  And  this  we  shall  find  to  be  the  basis  of  the  in- 
vention of  thought.  If,  for  example,  the  process  bo  the 
analysis  of  a  subject  or  term,  this  is  simply  the  resolu- 
tion of  a  whole  into  its  parts,  and  the  discovery  and 
statement  of  the  various  relations  of  those.  So  that 
when  the  mind  proposes  to  itself  the  analysis  of  any 
term  or  subject,  the  idea  of  the  whole  will  suggest  the 
parts  of  which  it  is  composed,  and  this  is  in  accordance 
with  a  recognized  law  of  the  association  of  ideas,  or 
rather  is  an  instance  of  that  law.  Again,  great  orig- 
inality is  often  displayed  in  the  grouping  of  facts  in 
natm*e,  or  events  in  history,  or  truths  in  morals.  This 
is  an  example  of  the  operation  of  the  associative  fac- 
ulty according  to  another  well-known  law  that  things 
that  aro  in  any  respect  similar  suggest  each  other  in 
the  mind  or  occur  to  tho  mind  in  connection.  This 
law  is  the  ground  of  classification  in  nature,  in  morals, 


260  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

among  men,  and  likewise  of  exemplification,  which  is  an 
eifective  form  of  thought  and  feature  of  style.  It  is  in 
accordance  with  this  principle  also  that  there  occur  to 
the  mind  those  similarities  which  are  the  ground  of 
similes,  metaphors,  parables,  and  of  illustration  in  gen- 
eral, which  makes  up  or  ought  to  make  up  a  large  part 
of  the  material  of  preaching.  The  opposite  relation  of 
contrast  or  contrariety  is  the  ground  of  that  fine  and 
effective  form  of  expression  called  antithesis,  which  is  so 
large  and  striking  a  feature  in  the  thought  and  style  of 
the  great  orators,  secular  and  sacred,  and  especially  of 
Paul  and  Augustine  and  Chrysostom.  If  the  process  be 
narration,  whether  of  external  events  or  mental  expe- 
riences, this  consists  of  the  observation  and  statement  of 
these  events  and  experiences  in  their  consecutive  or 
chronological  order  and  depends  upon  the  law  of  suc- 
cession in  time ;  while  if  it  be  description,  this  is  accord- 
ing to  the  law  of  contiguity  in  space ;  or  lastly,  if  the 
process  be  that  of  reasoning,  this  is  putting  the  mind 
upon  the  task  of  observing  or  inquiring  the  relation  of 
cause  and  effect,  as,  for  example,  what  "is  the  cause  of 
any  given  fact,  phenomenon,  or  event ;  or  what  is  prob- 
ably the  cause  of  it ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  what  is  the 
effect  of  any  given  cause  or  what  is  likely  to  be  the 
effect  of  it ;  or  yet  again,  what  is  the  design  or  so-called 
final  cause  of  any  given  act,  procedure,  institution ;  or, 
in  the  last  place,  what  conclusion  may  bo  involved  in 
any  known  position  or  genei-al  principle.  But  all  preach- 
ing consists  of  analysis,  which  includes  definition  and 


THE  INVENTION  OP  MATERIAL  FOR  PREACHING.       261 

explanation ;  or  of  reasoning  in  one  form  or  another ;  or 
of  new  groupings  of  facts  or  events  according  to  the 
principle  of  similarity  or  contrast;  or  of  illustration^ 
which  depends  on  the  principle  of  similarity ;  or  of  nar- 
ration or  description. 

The  process  of  invention  (in  preaching),  then,  is  either 
reproducing  what  is  already  in  the  mind  in  (new)  group- 
ings according  to  the  order  and  relations  suggested  by 
the  few  and  well-known  laws  governing  the  association 
of  ideas ;  or  it  is  advancing  from  what  is  already  known 
to  those  hitherto  unapprehended  truths  which  are  re- 
lated to  the  known  according  to  the  laws  of  the  associa- 
tion of  ideas,  and  which  form  the  complement,  so  to 
speak,  of  truths  already  known ;  as  the  apprehension  of 
an  unknown  cause  from  a  known  effect,  or  of  a  more  or 
less  probable  effect  from  a  known  cause,  or  of  a  new 
conclusion  from  a  known  premise.  In  each  of  these 
processes  the  imagination  has  a  necessary  part ;  in  the 
firat  the  part  of  composition  or  putting  together  in  new 
groupings  things  which  are  already  known  to  the  mind ; 
in  the  last  it  has  the  much  higher  function  of  advancing 
beyond  the  jumping-off  place  of  the  known,  and  cairying 
its  possessor  over  into  the  possession  of  truth  hitherto 
unperceived,  unknown,  unthought  of.  Sometimes  this 
process  is  so  short  and  swift  that  it  is  no  longer  recog- 
nized as  reasoning,  but  is  called  intuition  or  inspiration, 
and  distinguishes  its  achiever  as  a  man  of  genius. 

II.  Now  when  no  effort  is  made  to  control  the  suc- 
cession of  ideas  in  the  mind  they  do  not  always  or  gen- 


262  DISCUSSIONS  IN  tfiEOLOGY. 

erally  relate  to  one  subject  even,  but  follow  each  other 
often  by  very  slight  links  of  connection,  and  sometimes 
in  very  capricious  and  grotesque  order.  But  it  is  possible 
by  a  continuous  effort  of  the  will  to  hold  the  mind  upon 
one  subject  and  even  upon  a  single  aspect  of  any  given 
subject  till  all  irrelevant  thoughts  cease  to  intrude,  and 
the  succession  of  thoughts,  thus  confined  to  one  subject^ 
no  longer  proceeds  by  slight  and  capricious  connections, 
but  according  to  truth  and  the  real  relations  of  the  sub- 
ject. 

Moreover,  when  by  this  effort  of  the  will  the  mind  is 
withdrawn  from  other  subjects,  and  the  succession  of 
irrelevant  ideas  is  excluded,  then  we  are  surprised  and 
delighted  to  find  that  relevant  thoughts  abundantly  mul- 
tiply, and  the  mind  becomes  wonderfully  productive. 
As  we  say,  the  mind  gets  full  of  the  subject,  and  rele- 
vant and  just  thoughts  suggest  themselves  with  sur- 
prising facility  and  rapidity.  The  condition  of  invention, 
then,  is  close  and  continuous  attention,  and  we  may 
change  the  old  proverb  a  little  and  say  in  this  connection 
that  attention  is  the  mother  of  invention. 

We  experience  this  same  thought-productiveness  when 
our  attention,  instead  of  being  directed  by  an  effort  of 
the  will,  is  involuntarily  drawn  to  and  fixed  upon  any 
subject  by  the  inherent  attractiveness  of  the  subject  it- 
self. It  is  perfectly  wonderful,  for  example,  how  pro- 
ductive his  mind  becomes  when  "  in  the  spring  a  young 
man's  fancy  lightly  turns  to  thoughts  of" some  in- 
teresting friend,  and  he  daily  throws  off  page  after  page 


THE  INVENTION  OF  MATERIAL  S'OR  tRBACfilNG.      263 

of  the  most  relevant  matter  without  exhausting  the 
source  or  diminishing  the  supply.  This  explains  also 
how  it  is  that  when  we  are  deeply  interested  in  any  sub- 
ject we  find  it  easy  to  talk  about  it.  It  is  because  we 
fix  our  attention  upon  it  closely  and  continuously,  or 
rather  because  it  attracts  and  fixes  our  attention  upon 
itself. 

Sometimes  the  attention  is  8emi-voluntary,as  in  the  case 
of  the  preacher  who  has  let  the  week  pass  by  without 
preparing  his  sermon,  but  on  Saturday  night  finds  ne- 
cessity is  upon  him.  And  now  the  thoughts  that  would 
not  come  when  he  did  not  fix  his  attention  on  his  subject 
do  come  when  he  is  forced  to  do  so.  And  thoughts  come 
to  men  when  engaged  in  the  act  of  preaching,  and  a  de- 
lightful quickening  of  the  mind  is  experienced,  due  no 
doubt  to  the  intense  fixing  of  the  attention  upisn  the  sub- 
ject. Often  this  mental  fructification  and  thought-pro- 
duction continue  after  the  sermon  is  over,  and  sometimes 
in  a  heightened  degree.  What  preacher  has  not  some- 
times in  his  life  sat  up  on  Sunday  night  to  write  down 
the  good  thoughts  that  did  not  come  to  him  while  preach- 
ing ?  One  of  the  greatest  speakers  of  the  English  Par- 
liament said  ho  always  lost  two  nights'  sleep  over  every 
important  sijcech  ho  had  made — the  night  before  in 
thinking  of  what  he  was  going  to  say,  and  the  night 
after  in  thinking  of  the  good  things  ho  might  have  said. 

Though  the  production  of  thought  in  these  cases  seems 
to  be  automatic  and  involuntary,  it  is  not  so.  For  it  is 
due  to  the  continued  momentum  of  the  mental  epcrgy 


264  DISCUSSIONS  in  theoloqt. 

which  was  in  the  first  instance  set  in  motion  and  directed 
to  the  subject  in  hand  by  the  determined  and  vigorous 
concentration  of  the  attention  upon  it.  If,  then,  in  every 
case  the  condition  of  thought-production  is  close  and  con- 
tinuous attention,  and  if  attention  is  subject  to  the  will 
or  may  be  made  so  by  persistent  and  patient  efibrt  and 
practice,  it  follows  that  any  of  us  who  are  endowed  with 
ordinary  powers  may  become  thought-producers.  And 
to  this  agree  the  words  of  the  philosophers.  One  of  the 
greatest  of  them  does  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  the 
power  of  fixing  and  holding  the  attention  upon  any  given 
subject  determines  more  than  any  thing  else  the  differ- 
ences among  men  in  respect  to  intellectual  ability.  The 
passage  is  so  exceptionally  good  that  I  am  sure  I  shall 
be  excused  for  quoting  it  at  length : 

All  commencement  is  difficult;  and  this  is  more  especially 
true  of  intellectual  eflFort  When  we  turn  our  views  for  the  first 
time  on  any  given  object,  a  hundred  other  things  still  retain  pos- 
session of  our  thoughts.  Even  when  a  resolute  determination  or 
the  attraction  of  a  new  object  has  smoothed  the  way,  still  the 
mind  is  continually  perplexed  by  the  glimmer  of  intrusive  and 
distracting  thoughts  which  prevent  it  from  placing  that  wliich 
should  exclusively  occupy  its  view  in  the  full  clearness  of  an 
undivided  light.  Helvetius  justly  observes  that  the  very  feeblest 
intellect  is  capable  of  comprehending  the  inference  of  one  math- 
ematical position  from  another  and  even  of  making  such  an  in- 
ference itself.  .  .  .  The  most  difficult  and  complicate  demon- 
strations in  the  works  of  a  Newton  or  a  Laplace  are  all  made  up 
of  such  immediate  inferences.  They  are  like  houses  composed 
of  single  bricks.  No  greater  exertion  of  intellect  is  required  to 
make  a  thousand  such  inferences  than  is  requisite  to  make  one, 


THE  INVENTION  OP  MATERIAL  FOR  PREACHING.  265 

as  the  eflfort  of  laying  a  single  brick  is  the  maximum  of  any  in- 
dividual effort  in  the  construction  of  a  house.  Thus  the  diflfer- 
ence  between  an  ordinary  mind  and  the  mind  of  a  Newton  con- 
sists principally  in  this,  thatthe  one  is  capable  of  the  application  of 
a  more  continuous  attention  than  the  other,  that  a  Newton  is  able 
to  connect  inference  with  inference  in  one  long  series  toward  a 
determinate  end,  while  the  other  is  soon  obliged  to  break  off  or 
let  fall  the  thread  which  he  had  begun  to  spin.  This  is,  in  fact, 
what  Sir  Isaac,  with  equal  shrewdness  and  modesty,  himself  ad- 
mitted. To  one  who  complimented  him  on  his  genius  he  replied 
that  if  he  had  made  any  discoveries,  it  was  owing  more  to  patient 
attention  than  to  any  other  talent.  ...  If  what  Alcibiades  in 
the  Symposium  of  Plato  narrates  of  Socrates  be  true,  the  father 
of  Greek  philosophy  must  have  possessed  this  faculty  of  contin- 
uous attention  in  the  highest  d^ree.  According  to  this  report, 
in  a  military  expedition  which  Socrates  made  along  with  Alcibi- 
ades, the  philosopher  was  seen  by  the  Athenian  army  to  stand 
for  a  whole  day  and  a  night  until  the  breaking  of  the  second 
morning,  motionless,  with  a  fixed  gaze — thus  showing  that  he 
was  uninterruptedly  engrossed  with  the  consideration  of  a  single 
subject.  "And  thus,"  says  Alcibiades,  "  Socrates  is  ever  wont  to 
do  when  his  mind  is  occupied  with  inquiries  in  which  there  are 
difficulties  to  be  overcome.  He  then  never  interrupts  his  medi- 
tation, he  forgets  to  eat  and  drink  and  sleep  (among  the  last 
things,  by  the  way,  that  many  preachers  forget  to  do) — every 
thing,  in  short,  until  his  inquiry  has  reached  its  termination,  or  at 
least  until  he  has  seen  some  light  in  it."  In  this  account  of  Al- 
cibiades there  may  be  some  exaggeration,  btit  still  the  truth  of 
the  principle  is  undeniable. 

Like  Newton,  Descartes  arrogated  nothing  to  the  superiority 
of  his  mind.  What  he  accomplished  more  than  other  men,  that 
he  attributed  to  the  superiority  of  his  method.  And  Bacon  in  like 
manner  eulogizes  his  method — in  that  it  places  all  men  vnth  equal 


266  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

aUention  upon  a  level  and  leaves  little  or  nothing  to  the  preroga- 
tives of  genius.  Nay,  genius  itself  has  been  analyzed  by  the 
shrewdest  observers  into  a  higher  capacity  of  attention.  "  Gren- 
ius,"  says  Helvetius,  "is  nothing  but  a  continued  attention  "  {une 
aiiention  mivie).  I  have  dwelt  at  greater  length  upon  the  practical 
bearings  of  attention,  not  only  because  this  principle  constUutes  the 
belter  half  of  aU  intellectual  power,  but  because  it  is  of  consequence 
that  you  should  be  fully  aware  of  the  incalculable  importance  of 
acquiring,  by  early  and  continued  exercise,  the  habit  of  attention.* 

III.  If  attention  thus  bears  so  vital  a  relation  to  the 
production  of  thought,  it  is  important  to  know  if  tho 
power  of  attention  may  be  cultivated,  and  how.  It  has 
already  been  said,  and  it  is  true,  that  when  one  is  inter- 
ested, attention  is  not  difficult.  But  it  is  otherwise,  when 
one  is  not  interested.  In  what  way,  then,  may  the  power 
of  attention  be  subjected  to  the  control  of  the  will  ?  Per- 
haps few  men  have  succeeded  in  accomplishing  perfectly 
this  difficult  task.  We  read  amusing  accounts  of  the 
methods  which  some  great  men  have  adopted  for  assist- 
ing concentration.  That  great  German  thinker  and 
preacher,  Schleiermacher,  in  order  to  facilitate  mental  ap- 
plication used  to  lean  out  of  a  window  for  hours  together, 
or  in  general  to  assume  some  constrained  posture.f  Dan- 
iel Webster  could  compose  his  best  while  engaged  in  fish- 
ing. Whether  he  got  the  hint  from  Walton,  "tho  an- 
gling optimist  whose  pleasant  thoughts  wore  intuitions 

*Sir  William  Hamilton,  "Metaphysics,"  Ed.  Bowen,  pp. 
171-174. 

t  Compare  Broadus,  "  Preparation  and  Delivery  of  Sermons," 
p.  408. 


Ttt«  INVENTION  OP  MATERIAL  fOR  l>Rt:ACHING.      267 

that  came  to  him  while  engaged  in  his  favorite  pastime," 
I  do  not  know.  Milton  thought  out  much  of  his  "  Para- 
dise Lost "  while  lying  awake  in  bed  at  night.  Addison 
used  to  pace  up  and  down  the  long  hall  at  Holland  House 
while  composing.  Burns  composed  often  while  walking 
or  riding,  and  wrote  it  down  afterward.  Wordsworth 
used  to  compose  aloud  while  walking  in  the  woods  and 
fields.  Balzac  used  to  lock  himself  up  for  weeks  at  a 
time,  and  then  come  forth  into  the  world  with  a  new 
book.  Kant,  in  order  to  preserve  his  mental  energy  and 
clearness,  took  for  breakfast  only  a  cup  of  tea  and  a  pipe 
of  tobacco,  on  which  he  worked  for  eight  hours.  He 
dined  at  one,  and  ate  no  supper,  that  he  might  work  till 
late  at  night.  Lord  Jeffrey  engaged  in  conversation  to 
stimulate  his  mind  for  writing  a  new  article.  I  have 
read  or  heard  that  Macaulay  never  wrote  without  the 
immediate  stimulus  of  reading.  Sainte-Beuve  never 
spoke  about  any  character  or  doctrine  that  he  had  not 
bottomed,  as  far  as  he  was  able;  and  before  beginning 
actual  composition  his  mind  had  been  disciplined  into  a 
state  of  the  most  complete  readiness  like  the  fingers  of 
a  musician.* 

These  examples  show  that  close  mental  application 
never  ceased  to  bo  diflScult  for  these  great  writers.  And 
this  fact,  so  far  from  being  a  discouraging  one,  should 
really  have  the  opposite  effect  by  inducing  us  to  consent 
to  admit  that  the  mental  effort  involved  in  thought  and 

*See  "The  Intellectual  Life,"  by  Hamerton,  a  very  pleasant 
book,  and  Harper's  Young  People  for  October  23, 1888. 


268  toisOTTssioNs  in  theology. 

thought-production  is  difficult.  If  we  could  forever  rid 
ourselves  of  the  false  and  fatal  impression  that  preach- 
ing is  easy,  we  should  then  be  willing  to  give  ourselves 
to  labor,  to  toil,  to  agony,  if  need  be,  in  order  to  preach 
well.  And  to  be  willing  to  toil  and  suffer  for  it  is  already 
half  the  battle.  When  we  come  to  know  the  lives  of 
great  preachers  we  find  they  were  great  toilers.  Take 
the  case  of  two  of  opposite  types :  Frederick  W.  Eobert- 
son,  of  England,  and  an  eminent  but  not  scholarly  Bap- 
tist minister  in  the  United  States.  The  former  in  one  of 
his  letters  incidentally  gives  an  account  of  his  method  of 
composing.  He  says :  "  I  should  say  that  the  word  ex- 
tempore does  not  exactly  describe  the  way  I  preach.  I 
first  make  copious  notes.  Then  I  draw  out  a  form.  Aft- 
erward I  write  the  thoughts  copiously  into  a  connected 
whole,  sometimes  twice  or  thrice,  in  order  to  disentangle 
them.  Then  I  make  a  syllabus,  and  lastly  a  skeleton." 
It  is  no  wonder  he  was  a  great  preacher.  The  Baptist 
minister,  whose  preaching  is  described  as  uniformly  pow- 
erful, when  asked  by  one  who  had  heard  him,  what  his 
method  of  preparation  was,  replied :  "After  having  pre- 
pared my  sermon  in  my  study  to  the  best  of  my  ability, 
by  thought  and  prayer,  I  go  over  it  from  five  to  twenty 
times  while  walking  or  riding  alone  in  the  woods,  in  or- 
der to  change  it,  reconstruct  it,  add  to  it,  and  fix  it  in 
my  mind."  It  is  no  wonder  ho  was  a  great  preacher. 
Those  who  think  Bishop  Pierce  preached  without  labor 
will  find  they  are  mistaken  if  they  will  read  page  96  of 
his  "  Life  "  by  George  Gr.  Smith. 


THE  INVENTION  OP  MATERIAL  FOR  PREACHING.      269 

"  Preaching  made  easy  "  is  a  delusion  and  a  snare — 
that  is,  good  preaching  made  easy.  The  power  of  direct- 
ing and  holding  the  attention  is  not  of  easy  acquisition. 
Let  this  be  received  and  believed  at  the  outset,  and  the 
way  is  open  to  success ;  otherwise  not. 

In  general,  the  most  eifective  means  of  cultivating  the 
capacity  of  attention  is  to  subject  one's  self  to  a  long  and 
severe  training  under  a  clear-headed,  painstaking,  critical, 
exacting  teacher.*  When  this  is  impracticable,  the  next 
best  thing  is  the  close  study  and  thorough  mastery  of 
books  that  are  difficult  enough  to  require  close  applica- 
tion,f  but  not  so  difficult  as  to  baffle  and  discourage  the 
student.  Howbeit,  you  had  better  read  five  books  with 
your  understanding  than  ten  thousand  books  without 
your  underatanding.  F.  W.  Eobertson  said  to  a  friend 
that  he  could  count  the  religious  books  he  had  read  on 
the  fingers  of  his  hands ;  but  he  had  made  them  his  own, 
and  they  had  passed  into  his  being  like  the  iron  atoms 
of  the  blood.  But  in  these  days  of  multiplied  methods 
it  is  not  necessary  for  an  earnest,  ambitious  young  man 
to  study  without  a  teacher.  If  he  cannot  have  a 
teacher  in  person,  he  may  have  one  by  correspondence. 
There  are  such  teachers  and  such  schools,  though  those 
can  never  supply  the  ]>lace  of  the  living  teacher.  It 
would  bo  a  good  thing  if  the  young  preachers  who  are 

*  Vinet  says :  "  The  most  reliable  means  of  invention  is  a  truly 
philosophical  culture."    ("  Honiiletics,"  p.  53.) 

fSir  W.  Hamilton's  "  Metaphysics "  (Bowen)  is  strong  in 
thought  and  beautifully  clear  in  style. 


270  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THBOLOOT. 

pursuing  our  Conferonco  Course  of  Study  could  recite  to 
their  examiners  regularly  by  con-espondence  and  receive 
from  them  direction  and  correction  and  instruction,  in- 
stead of  studying  all  through  the  year  without  guidance 
or  help  and  then  trying  to  go  through  five  or  six  great 
subjects  at  Conference  in  two  days.  This  method  would 
require  some  labor  and  self-denial  on  the  part  of  the  ex- 
aminers, but  would  result  in  personal  advantage  to  them- 
selves sufficient  to  compensate  for  it  all,  besides  the  sat- 
isfaction of  helping  their  younger  brethren. 

In  the  next  place  practice  invention.  Select  a  subject 
or  text  and  set  yourself  to  compose  an  essay  or  a  sermon, 
and  when  you  start  at  it  stick  to  it  in  all  moods  and  tenses 
and  weathers,  if  it  takes  all  summer — and  all  winter. 
Make  a  promise,  enter  into  an  engagement,  put  yourself 
under  obligation  to  write — ^to  write  a  paper  for  a  Christian 
Endeavor  Society,  or  a  literary  club,  or  an  article  for  a 
newspaper  or  review-  Promise  an  article  to  be  furnished 
at  a  certain  definite  time,  an  article  that  you  know  will 
be  seen  or  heard  by  those  who  will  ajipreciate  it,  if  it  is 
good,  or  criticise  it,  if  it  is  not.  Lay  a  necessity  upon 
yourself,  and  do  it  again  and  again. 

As  a  special  help  at  the  time  for  awakening  interest  in 
the  subject  and  so  fixing  the  attention  upon  it  in  order  to 
promote  invention,  I  would  put  among  the  first,  conver- 
sation with  some  intelligent  and  thoughtful  friend  or 
friends  of  inquiring  and  independent  habits  of  mind. 
Some  of  the  clearest  and  most  satisfactory  views  I  have 
gotten  of  the  Scriptures  have  been  those  brought  out  in 


THE  INVENTION  OF  MATERIAL  FOE  PEE  ACHING.      271 

free  and  earnest  conversation  with  my  students  in  the 
Univereity  classes  and  with  another  friend  who  is  a  help- 
meet in  all  the  affairs  of  life.  These,  in  many  instances, 
I  am  free  to  say,  have,  by  their  questions,  objections,  sug- 
gestions, given  quite  as  much  help  as  they  have  received, 
and  possibly  more.  There  is  perhaps  nothing  in  the 
world  that  so  rouses  the  mind  and  gives  it  such  a  pro- 
ductive and  delightful  activity  as  free  conversation  with 
well-informed  or  inquiring  persons  of  quick,  incisive  in- 
tellect and  independent  habits  of  thinking.  Other  things 
being  equal,  no  debating  society  is  comparable  to  it. 
Conversation  not  only  imparts  this  delightful  mental 
glow  of  healthful  activity,  it  likewise  gives  definiteness 
and  reality  to  views  already  half-possessed  and  urges  the 
mind  forth  to  the  grasp  of  views  entirely  new.  It  will 
be  quite  as  well  or  better  if  you  will  hold  your  conversa- 
tions with  friends  who  are  known  to  differ  with  you  in 
their  views  of  the  subject  in  hand,  or  at  least  who  are 
not  afraid  to  differ  with  you. 

In  the  next  place  comes  reading,  the  object  of  which 
is  not  that  you  may  gather  together  what  others  have 
said  about  the  subject — far  from  it — but  that  you  may  get 
interested  in  it,  and  so  facilitate  the  application  of  your 
mind  to  it.  And  here  again,  as  the  design  is  to  awaken 
your  mind  and  stimulate  your  thought,  it  is  better  to 
read  those  authore  who  ai*e  known  to  have  original  and 
independent  views,  and  views  that  differ  from  the  tradi- 
tional. We  all  need  to  be  jostled  out  of  the  ruts.  Among 
pi-eachers,  Horace  Bushnell  and  F.  W.  Kobertson  are 


272  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

original,  vigorous,  stimulating,  suggestive.  In  exegesis, 
with  the  exception  of  Meyer,  whose  works  are  too  diffi- 
cult for  the  English  reader,  Lightfoot  stands  easily  at 
the  head.  But  you  will  find  it  very  hard  not  to  agree 
with  him.  His  comments  are  on  the  Greek  text,  but  a 
well-trained,  wide-awake  English  reader  can  follow  them, 
for  the  most  part.  Try  one  volume  (that  on  Philippians), 
and  you  will  want  more.  The  advantage  of  reading  will 
be  greatly  heightened  if,  before  reading,  the  subject  be 
as  thoroughly  studied  as  there  is  time  and  capacity  for. 
Another  special  help  to  invention  is  to  have  a  definite  ob- 
ject in  every  sermon,  to  know  just  what  that  object  is, 
and  to  aim  at  it  throughout.  John  Foster  thinks  this 
one  of  the  secrets  of  Eobert  Hall's  power.  Some  one 
has  called  it  the  power  behind  the  throne. 

But  before  all  and  in  the  midst  of  all  and  above  all,  yet 
never  to  be  separated  from  them,  the  chief  and  highest 
preparation  for  and  aid  to  invention  is  prayer. 

By  these  means  conscientiously  and  peraistently  applied, 
one  may  cultivate  the  power  of  attention  to  an  indefinite 
degree.  As  acquired  virtues  are  the  finest,  acquired  powers 
are  the  best,  and  a  man  who  is  singularly  deficient  in  a  cer- 
tain respect  may  bestow  such  persevering  effort  in  that 
direction  as  to  surpass  others  in  that  very  thing.  So  that 
often  one's  weakness  becomes  one's  strength.  Demos- 
thenes was  by  nature  less  fitted  than  any  of  his  contem- 
poraries for  the  stormy  arena  of  Athenian  oratory,  but 
the  realization  of  his  unfitness  impelled  him  to  an  indus- 
try which  enabled  him  to  outstrip  them  all. 


INVENTION  OF  MATERIAL  FOR  PRBAUUlNG,  273 

IV.  But  before  the  process  of  thought  can  be  applied, 
material  must  be  gathered  in  great  abundance.  The 
sources  of  materials  are  many,  but  we  can  consider  here 
only  one,  that  divine-human  and  m3ri*iad-8ided  book,  the 
Bible. 

A  man  of  sound  and  profound  training,  in  easy  com- 
mand of  the  contents  of  the  Book,  would  make  a  great 
preacher  if  he  confined  himself  to  the  materials  furnished 
there.  The  Bible  is  as  great  and  wonderful  as  the  world, 
and  more  so.  It  is  as  high  as  the  stars,  and  higher.  It 
is  as  deep  as  the  seas,  and  deeper.  It  is  as  manifold  and 
multitudinous  and  as  minute  as  nature.  It  is  as  various 
and  complex  as  man,  and  more  so.  It  exhausts  man  and 
brings  into  view  beings  higher  and  beings  lower  than 
man.  It  is  as  high  and  difficult  as  God ;  it  is  as  simple 
as  a  little  child.  It  is  broader  than  all  literature;  it 
stretches  farther  than  all  history;  it  is  higher  than  all 
philosophy.  As  we  must  study  nature  with  various  in- 
terpreters so  must  we  the  Bible.  When  we  look  upon 
the  face  of  nature  in  a  general  way,  we  get  a  general  im- 
pression of  its  wonderfulness,  but  no  definite  apprecia- 
tion of  its  endless  variegatedness,  its  minute  and  delicate 
beauties,  its  complete  and  perfect  order.  To  understand 
these  we  must  study,  trees  and  flowers  with  the  special- 
ist in  botany,  the  structure  and  classification  of  the  rocks 
with  the  specialist  in  geology,  the  mysteries  of  light  and 
sound  and  motion  with  the  specialist  in  physics,  the  won- 
ders of  water  from  the  dew-drop  to  the  glacier  with  the 
specialist  in  physical  geography,  the  number  and  path- 
18 


274  1>18CU88I0NS  IN  THEOLOOY. 

ways  of  the  stars  with  the  specialist  in  astronomy.  And 
yet  these  are  not  the  highest  high-priests  of  nature's 
mysteries.  It  is  the  province  of  the  poet  to  lead  us  into 
nature's  holy  of  holies  and  interpret  for  us  her  higher 
meanings.  So  that  while  we  study  nature  with  Dana 
and  Gray  and  Agassiz  and  Tyndall  and  the  scientists,  we 
enter  into  her  higher  courts  with  "Wordsworth  and  Ten- 
nyson and  Euskin  and  Browning  and  Shakespeare.  And 
so  it  is  necessary  to  study  the  Bible.  We  shall  find  the 
largest  advantage  if  we  study  it  minutely  and  microscop- 
ically with  the  scientific  specialist  in  exact  grammatical 
and  historical  exegesis,  as  Lightfoot,  EUicott,  Westcott, 
Godet,  Meyer,  Delitszch,  Pusey;  with  the  specialists  in 
doctrinal  and  systematic  statement,  as  Pope,  Martensen, 
Luthardt,  and  Summers;  and  at  the  same  time  study  it 
prayerfully  and  profoundly  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  of  men  who  have  risen  to  the  higher  and 
broader  spiritual  meaning  of  the  sacred  Word,  as  John 
Wesley,  Fletcher,  Payson,  Spurgeon,  and  Moody. 

Combining  these  three  methods  of  studying  the  Bible, 
we  shall  find  it  is  a  store-house  of  materials.  If  we  have 
an  easy  familiarity  with  the  contents  of  the  Bible,  its 
facts,  its  history,  its  poetry,  its  laws,  its  chai-acters,  its 
examples,  its  doctrines,  its  system,  we  shall  find  that  upon 
condition  of  close  and  patient  study  of  any  given  text 
or  subject,  the  other  parts  that  are  relevant  or  in  any 
way  vitally  associated  with  the  matter  in  hand,  will,  in 
accordance  with  the  law  discussed  in  the  first  part  of  this 
paper,  come  filing  in  and  offer  themselves  for  service. 


INVENTION  OP  MATERIAL  FOE  PREACHING.  275 

All  preaching  should  be  expository.  Our  standard  of 
preaching  ought  to  be  no  longer  the  oration,  but  the  ex- 
position. Even  if  it  be  a  subject-sermon,  the  definitions, 
the  analysis,  and  largely  the  argument,  will  be  drawn 
from  the  Bible,  and  much  of  the  illustration  as  well. 
Much  more  is  this  true  of  text-sermons  and  expository 
sermons,  technically  so  called.  If  this  be  true,  the  man 
who  has  large  command  of  the  contents  of  the  Bible  will 
be  amply  furnished  for  his  great  work — "All  Scripture 
is  given  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thor- 
oughly furnished  unto  every  good  word." 

But  some  one  asks :  "  How  can  a  man  be  fresh  and  orig- 
inal, if  he  only  expounds  the  Bible  ?  "  In  the  firat  place, 
he  may  have  original  views  of  Scripture.  "But  isn't 
the  proper  interpretation  of  Scripture  for  the  most  part 
already  discovered,  agreed  upon,  and  settled  ?  "  No.  The 
Scriptures  bearing  upon  great  doctrinal  points  are  fairly 
agreed  upon,  but  of  particular  passages  this  is  not  at  all 
true.  Indeed,  so  far  as  most  people  are  concerned,  an 
exact  interpretation  of  almost  any  scripture  passage  will 
be  new  and  in  most  cases  sui-prising  and  delightful.  A 
strictly  contextual  interpretation  of  most  passages  would 
also  be  fresh  and  entertaining  to  most  people.  So  inex- 
act and  vague  is  the  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures  on  the 
part  of  most  people  that  it  is  safe  to  say  a  true  inter- 
pretation will,  as  a  rule,  be  a  new  interpretation.  The 
thing,  then,  is  to  find  out  by  close  study  the  interpreta- 
tion that  is  exactly  true. 

In  the  second  place,  one  may  attain  a  decided  origi- 


27G  DISCUSSIONS  IN  TIIEOLOOY. 

nality  by  putting  the  materials  of  the  Scripture  in  new 
groupings.  Green  had  no  new  materials,  and  yet  he  has 
made  a  fresh  and  original  History  of  the  English  People. 
Goodwin  had  no  new  materials,  but  by  a  grouping  of  his 
own  he  made  a  new  and  most  excellent  Greek  Gi*ammar. 
Pope  had  no  new  materials,  and  yet  he  has  made  a  work 
on  Systematic  Theology  that  is  original  and  new,  a  won- 
derfully entertaining  book.  This  originality  is  due  part- 
ly to  his  exact  interpretation  of  Scripture  and  partly  to 
his  new  grouping  of  passages  and  of  doctrines. 

In  the  third  place,  presenting  old  truth  as  felt  and 
seen  by  you  will  be  new  truth.  Some  men  see  what  oth- 
ers have  said  about  the  truth,  and  some  see  the  truth  it- 
self. They  who  see  the  truth  itself,  see  it  apart  from  any 
form  which  it  may  have  taken  before,  and  seeing  it  apart 
from  and  without  any  form  of  expression,  they  give  it  a 
form  of  their  own,  and  an  old  truth  in  a  new  form  will 
strike  as  new.  The  forms  which  many  truths  have  in  the 
Bible  itself  have  become  so  familiar  that  they  have  ceased 
to  strike  or  impress.  Take  these  truths  into  your  mind 
and  heart,  realize  them  in  their  naked  reality,  and  then 
clothe  them  in  a  form  of  your  own,  and  you  will  be  an 
original  preacher.  Personality  in  preaching  will  impart 
originality  to  preaching.  Truth  and  personality  are  the 
two  elements  of  preaching,  and  if  a  man  is  to  avoid 
"  dealing  in  the  wretched  traflSc  of  unfelt  truth  "  he  must 
realize  the  truth  for  himself. 


CHRISTIANITY   AND   ART. 
The  Iconoclastic  Controversy. 


In  the  Christian  Church  of  the  first  century  there  was 
unquestionably  a  strong  feeling  of  dislike  for  all  the  forms 
of  fine  art.  This  feeling  was  partly  an  inheritance  from 
Judaism,  which  utterly  lacked  the  artistic  spirit,  and  was 
partly  derived  from  an  exaggerated  interpretation  of  such 
passages  of  the  New  Testament  as  John  iv.  24 :  "  God  is  a 
Spirit :  and  they  that  worship  him  must  worship  him  in 
spirit  and  in  truth,"  Other  facts  also  may  help  to  account 
for  it.  In  the  first  place,  art  had  been  for  many  ages  the 
obedient  servant  of  heathenism,  and  had  found  one  of  its 
chief  employments  in  the  building,  furnishing,  and  decorat- 
ing of  heathen  temples.  So  complete,  in  fact,  was  the  alli- 
ance between  the  two  that  it  was  easy  to  confound  the 
one  with  the  other.  This  alone  would  have  been  suffi- 
cient to  raise  an  unfriendly  suspicion.  "The  religious 
consciousness  easily  took  an  opposite  direction  to  the 
ojsthetic  principle  in  the  ancient  world,  and  the  holy  dis- 
dained the  beautiful  form  which  had  been  allied  to  the 
unholy."  Then,  too,  the  great '  majority  of  the  early 
Christians  were  a  simple-minded  and  uneducated  people, 
so  entirely  engrossed  with  the  hard  tasks  of  daily  life  as 
to  have  little  time  or  opportunity  for  the  cultivation  of 
their  aesthetic  faculties ;  and  there  was,  moreover,  an  al- 


27fi  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

most  universal  expectation  among  them  of  the  speedy 
return  of  Christ  to  destroy  all  the  vain  works  of  man 
and  to  burn  up  the  solid  globe  itself.  We  may  easily  in- 
fer what  must  have  been  the  feelings  of  the  multitude  of 
less  intelligent  Christians,  if  we  consider  the  state  of 
mind  with  which  so  liberal  a  man  as  St.  Paul  looked 
upon  the  magnificence  of  Athens.  Instead  of  being 
moved  to  wonder  and  admiration  by  its  vast  display  of 
beauty,  "  his  spirit  was  stirred  in  him,  when  he  saw  the 
city  wholly  given  to  idolatry."  The  countless  products 
of  human  genius  that  met  his  eye  stood  to  him  simply  as 
the  embodiments  of  a  dominant  and  aggressive  idolatry 
— of  an  Idolatry  which  sanctioned  and  aggravated  in- 
stead of  rebuking  and  relieving  the  inherent  and  awful 
depravity  of  human  nature.  What  could  he  do  under 
such  circumstances  but  utter  words  of  indignant  pro- 
test? 

But  manifestly  this  state  of  things  could  not  be  per- 
manent. "The  same  law  of  Christian  development," 
says  Neander,  "which  required  that  the  abrupt  opposi- 
tion to  the  world  chamcterizing  its  first  period  should 
give  place  to  the  Christian  appropriation  of  the  world  is 
to  be  applied  also  to  the  relation  of  Christianity  to  art." 
The  ultimate  design  of  our  holy  religion  is  not  to  with- 
draw itself  in  cynical  contempt  from  the  ordinary  walks 
of  human  life,  but  to  penetrate  and  sanctify  them  all  by 
its  presence.  "All  things  are  yours,"  writes  St.  Paul  him- 
self to  the  Corinthians.  In  this  declaration  there  is 
wrapped  up  a  general  truth,  the  full  significance  of  which 


CflRISTlANrTT  AM)  AAt.  27f) 

has  not  yet  been  apprehended.  All  things  belong  to  the 
Christian  man  in  such  sense  that  he  may  use  them  all  for 
the  broadening  and  deepening  of  his  intellectual  and 
moi"al  being.  Nothing  is  to  be  refused  if  it  can  be  re- 
ceived with  thanksgiving  and  enjoyed  with  moderation. 
Literature,  science,  art — all  the  good  and  true  and  beau- 
tiful things  that  our  brother  men  have  thought  and  said 
and  done — are  a  part  of  our  inheritance  as  the  children 
of  God.  For  prudential  reasons  and  as  a  temporary  ex- 
pediency, it  may  sometimes  be  best  that  we  should  ab- 
stain from  the  use  of  this  inheritance;  but  there  is  no 
sufficient  reason  why  we  should  be  permanently  excluded 
from  its  occupancy. 

As  might  have  been  expected,  it  came  to  pass  when 
Christianity  had  spread  itself  widely  among  the  Greeks, 
who  wore  of  all  the  people  that  ever  lived  upon  the  earth 
the  most  artistic,  that  there  was  a  gradual  but  radical 
change  in  the  temper  with  which  objects  of  art  were 
viewed — a  change  which  did  not  stop  within  reasonable 
and  scriptural  boundaries,  but  went  to  the  last  limit  of 
superstitious  folly.  "After  the  middle  or  close  of  the  sec- 
ond century,"  says  Dr.  Schatf,  "  we  find  the  rude  begin- 
nings of  Christian  art  in  the  form  of  significant  symbols 
in  the  private  and  social  life  of  the  Christians  and  after- 
ward in  public  worahip."  Among  the  commonest  of  these 
symbols  was  the  monogram  of  the  name  of  Christ  made 
by  an  intertwining  of  the  letters  .V  and  P.  Very  often 
the  letter  X  ended  in  an  anchor,  and  the  letter  P  was  en- 
compsissed  by  the  letters  a  and  <a.    Wo  also  meet  with 


280  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

figures  of  a  ship,  of  a  dove,  of  an  anchor,  of  a  fisherman, 
of  a  crown,  of  a  palm-tree,  of  a  lamb,  of  a  cock  (in  allu- 
sion to  John  xviii.  27),  and  of  a  phenix  (as  a  symbol  of 
the  resurrection).  "By  and  by  these  symbols  led  to  the 
use  of  types.  Old  Testament  histories  were  now  depicted. 
From  that  it  required  only  another  step  to  delineate  New 
Testament  events."  "Among  the  rich  and  noble  men  and 
women  in  the  Byzantine  Empire  Christianity  was  affect- 
ed even  in  the  mode  of  dress.  When  it  was  the  fashion 
for  men  and  women  of  rank  to  wear  garments  on  which 
the  whole  representation  of  a  chase  was  embroidered  in 
gold  and  silver  threads,  they  who  made  pretension  to  pi- 
ety, on  the  other  hand,  chose  the  representation  of  the 
marriage-feast  at  Cana,  of  the  blind  man  restored  to 
sight,  of  the  man  sick  of  the  palsy  who  took  up  his  bed 
and  walked,  of  the  woman  with  the  issue  of  blood,  of  the 
Magdalene  who  embraced  the  feet  of  Jesus,  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Lazarus.  Bedizened  with  such  figures,  they 
supposed  that  their  dress  must  be  well  approved  in  the 
sight  of  God."  (Neander's  "  Church  History,"  Vol.  II., 
p.  324.) 

It  was  not  until  the  close  of  the  third  century,  how- 
ever, that  artistic  representations  of  holy  things,  which 
had  hitherto  been  confined  to  private  houses  and  the  cat- 
acombs, were  carried  into  the  churches.  Even  then  it 
was  not  done  without  much  and  violent  opposition.  The 
Spanish  Council  of  Elvira,  which  met  in  the  year  306, 
and  which  had  so  far  declined  from  the  purity  of  apos- 
tolic doctrine  as  to  demand  a  celibate  clergy,  nevertheless 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  ART.  281 

showed  some  vivid  apprehensions  of  religious  truth  by 
prohibiting  pictures  of  any  sort  in  the  churches,  for  fear 
the  "objects  of  veneration  and  worship  should  be  painted 
on  the  walls."  But  this  prohibition  did  little  good.  The 
custom  was  already  beginning  to  be  a  general  one.  It 
fell  in  with  the  current  beliefs  of  the  age,  and  was  pow- 
erfully re-enforced  by  the  excessive  reverence  which  had 
long  been  felt  for  the  names  and  memories  of  the  saints. 
The  popular  religion  was  in  fact  already  half  paganized 
by  the  incorporation  of  alien  principles  and  practices.  By 
the  close  of  the  fourth  century  nearly  every  one  who 
built  a  church  wished  it  to  be  set  out  "  with  all  the  em- 
bellishments of  art  and  with  the  rich  ornament  of  pict- 
ures." 

But  we  must  not  suppose  that  all  those  who  acceded 
to  such  arrangements  were  image-worshipers  in  the 
coarse  and  gross  sense  of  the  term.  Among  the  igno- 
rant and  the  thoughtless  many  no  doubt  went  even  to 
this  extreme,  utterly  failing  to  apprehend  the  fine  and 
airy  distinctions  between  images  as  instruments  of  devo- 
tion and  as  objects  of  worship.  But  with  many  others 
the  case  was  different.  By  them  the  images  were  prized 
simply  as  remembrances  of  the  glorified,  or  as  memorials 
of  great  transactions  in  the  history  of  the  Church.  Even 
as  late  as  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century  we  find 
Gregory  the  Great,  the  last  of  the  four  great  doctors  of 
the  Latin  Church,  entering  a  caution  against  possible 
abuses.  A  famous  hermit  had  sent  to  him  for  images  of 
Christ  and  some  of  the  saints.    The  request  was  granted, 


282  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

but  with  an  accompanying  letter  which,  while  it  praised 
the  pious  wish  for  those  holy  symbols,  warned  the  her- 
mit against  setting  too  much  store  by  them.  "  I  am  well 
aware,"  wrote  Gregory,  "  that  thou  desirest  not  the  im- 
age of  the  Saviour  that  thou  mayest  worship  it  as  God, 
but  to  enkindle  in  thee  the  love  of  him  whose  image  thou 
wouldst  see.  Neither  do  we  prostrate  ourselves  before 
the  image  as  before  a  deity,  but  we  adore  him  whom  the 
symbol  represents  to  our  memory  as  born,  as  suffering, 
or  as  seated  on  the  throne ;  and,  according  to  the  repre- 
sentations, the  correspondent  feelings  of  joyful  elevation 
or  of  painful  sympathy  are  excited  in  our  breasts." 

By  the  eighth  century  such  conservative  views  as  these, 
though  they  still  lingered  in  the  West,  and  especially  in 
the  Galilean  Church,  had  almost  entirely  gone  out  of 
fashion  in  the  Eastern  empire.  Milman  says  ("Latin 
Christianity,"  Book  IV,,  Chap.  7) :  "  Image-worship  in 
the  mass  of  the  people,  of  the  whole  monkhood  at  this 
time,  was  undeniably  the  worship  of  the  actual,  material, 
present  image  rather  than  that  of  the  remote,  formless, 
or  spiritual  power  of  which  it  was  the  emblem  or  the 
representative.  The  whole  tendency  of  popular  belief 
was  to  localize,  to  embody  in  the  material  thing  the  su- 
pernatural or  divine  power."  It  is  difficult  for  us  who 
live  in  the  nineteenth  century  to  believe  the  actual  facts 
in  regard  to  the  extent  to  which  at  that  time  the  abuse 
had  gone.  Images  were  used  as  godparents  in  prefer- 
ence to  living  men  and  women.  A  part  of  the  coloring- 
matter  with  which  they  had  been  painted  was  scratched 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  ART.  283 

off  and  mixed  with  the  sacramental  wine  to  enhance  the 
efficiency  of  that  life-giving  fluid.  The  bread  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  likewise  laid  upon  their  holy  hands 
before  being  distributed  to  the  faithful.  Unnumbered 
stories  of  the  miracles  which  they  had  wrought  were 
circulated  and  believed. 

In  the  year  716  the  Emperor  Leo  III.,  called  the  Isau- 
rian  from  the  place  of  his  birth,  ascended  the  throne 
of  the  Byzantine  Empire.  He  was  of  the  humblest  or- 
igin, and  had  pushed  his  way  to  eminence  solely  by  his 
unquestioned  abilities  as  a  soldier.  Soon  after  his  as- 
cension he  gained  a  complete  victory  over  the  Saracens, 
who  for  the  second  time  had  invested  Constantinople. 
So  far-reaching  were  the  results  of  this  victory  as  to 
postpone  for  seven  centuries  the  Mohammedan  suprem- 
acy in  South-eastern  Europe.  Some  ten  years  later,  in 
the  year  726,  Leo  began  a  crusade  against  image-worship 
— a  crusade  which  was  carried  on  with  varying  success 
for  more  than  one  hundred  years,  and  whose  remote  con- 
sequences wore  of  the  most  important  chai-acter.  What 
were  the  exact  motives  that  prompted  him  it  is  at  this 
distance  of  time  hard  to  tell.  His  enemies  are  his  only 
historians,  and  we  are  obliged  by  every  consideration  of 
fairness  to  receive  with  a  large  discount  what  they  may 
say  concerning  him.  Whether  ho  had  a  genuine  appre- 
ciation of  spiritual  religion  and  sincerely  believed  that 
the  existing  forms  of  worship  wore  no  bettor  than  idol- 
atry, or  whether  he  was  anxious  so  far  to  modify  the 
prevailing  principles  and  pi-actices  of  the  Christians  as  to 


284  DISCUSSIONS  IN  TII^LOdif. 

take  away  the  chief  hindcrances  to  the  successful  prose- 
lyting of  the  Mohammedans  from  the  faith  of  the  proph- 
et, or  whether  some  yet  lower  consideration  constrained 
him,  it  is  not  possible  for  us  to  determine.  This  much  at 
least,  however,  may  be  affirmed,  that  his  policy  was  the 
product  of  no  mere  spasmodic  impulse,  but  rather  of  a 
fixed  and  definite  purpose. 

In  the  outset  Leo  proceeded  with  some  caution,  not  at 
once  commanding  the  destruction  of  the  images,  but  sim- 
ply prohibiting  their  worship,  and  especially  requiring 
them  to  be  placed  higher  up  on  the  walls  of  the  church- 
es, where  they  could  not  be  kissed  by  the  superstitious 
multitudes.  In  730,  goaded  by  the  opposition  which 
these  tentative  measures  had  encountered,  he  issued  a 
second  edict  of  much  greater  severity,  decreeing  the  en- 
tire removal  of  images  from  every  church,  and  requiring 
them  to  be  destroyed.  This  raised  a  terrible  storm.  The 
populace  of  Constantinople  became  furious,  and  when  an 
imperial  oflScer  undertook  to  throw  down  a  much  revered 
image  of  Christ  that  stood  over  one  of  the  city  gates  a 
mob  of  pious  women  jerked  the  ladder  from  under  his 
feet  and  beat  him  to  death  with  clubs.  So  great  indeed 
was  the  hatred  that  Leo  incurred  by  what  was  regarded 
as  his  sacrilegious  conduct  that  a  formidable  rebellion 
broke  out  in  Greece  and  in  the  islands  of  the  ^goan 
Sea,  and  a  certain  Cosmos  was  set  up  as  a  rival  emperor. 
It  did  not  take  Loo  long  to  put  down  this  rebellion,  nor 
did  he  hesitate  to  make  an  example  of  its  chief  leaders 
by  cutting  oflf  their  heads.    There  were  other  antago- 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  AET.  285 

nists  not  so  easily  handled.  First  among  these  we  may 
reckon  Germanus,  the  venerable  Bishop  of  Constantino- 
ple, now  in  his  ninety-fifth  year.  In  spite  of  his  great 
age  he  withstood  all  the  blandishments  and  all  the  threats 
of  the  emperor,  and  remained  steadfast  in  the  possession 
of  his  beliefs  and  courageous  in  the  expression  of  them. 
He  was  finally  deposed  from  his  bishopric,  and  his  secre- 
tary, Anastasius — a  contemptible  creature  of  whom  we 
shall  hear  more  by  and  by — was  put  into  his  place. 
Ranged  with  Germanus  was  Gregory  II.,  the  Bishop  of 
Eome,  who,  though  likewise  a  subject  of  the  emperor, 
was  too  far  removed  to  feel  the  pressure  of  his  authority. 
This  prolate,  one  of  the  narrowest  and  most  bigoted  of 
his  class,  wrote  to  Loo  two  most  arrogant  and  insolent 
letters,  lecturing  him  as  if  he  had  been  the  merest  school- 
boy, and  defying  him  to  show  any  sign  of  resentment. 
In  the  far  Bast,  John  of  Damascus,  a  subject  and  officer 
of  the  Sultan,  but  at  the  same  time  the  most  eminent 
living  theologian  of  the  Greek  Chui'ch,  followed  the  ex- 
ample of  Gregory  and  Germanus ;  and  in  three  formal 
orations  exhausted  all  the  arguments,  great  and  small, 
that  could  be  adduced  in  favor  of  image-worship.  To 
these  great  names  must  be  added,  with  the  rarest  excep- 
tions, the  whole  fraternity  of  monks,  and,  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  controversy,  the  immense  majority  of  the 
higher  and  the  lower  clergy.  The  army,  on  the  other 
hand,  indorsed  and  sustained  the  policy  of  their  beloved 
commander.  As  time  went  on  an  increasing  number  of 
bishops,  led  by  various  motives,  took  the  same  course. 


286  DISCUSSIONS  IN  TUJiOLOGY. 

The  most  prominent  of  these  were  Constantine,  Bishop 
of  Nacolia  in  Phrygia,  and  Theodosius,  Bishop  of  Ephe- 
sus. 

For  twelve  years  Leo  labored  to  root  out  the  great  su- 
perstition from  his  dominions.  That  he  was  only  par- 
tially successful  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  when  he  died 
the  image-worshipers  rose  en  masse  and  essayed  to  place 
Artabasdus  on  the  throne  instead  of  Constantine  IV.,  the 
son  and  rightful  heir  of  Leo.  But  this  attempt  ended  in 
failure. 

Constantine  (nicknamed  Copronymus  by  his  monkish 
enemies  because  he  was  said  to  have  defiled  the  font  at 
his  baptism)  inherited  both  his  father's  military  genius 
and  his  iconoclastic  temper.  In  744  he  became  absolute 
master  of  the  empire.  To  follow  the  winding  course  of 
affairs  during  his  reign  is  beyond  my  space.  Let  it  be 
sufficient  to  say  that  he  convened  in  754  what  aspired  to 
be  the  Seventh  Ecumenical  Council  of  the  Church,  for 
the  purpose  of  securing  a  deliberate  and  formal  judgment 
on  the  matters  at  issue.  This  body,  which  met  in  the 
city  of  Constantinople,  was  composed  of  three  hundred 
and  forty-eight  bishops,  the  most  of  whom  were  of  re- 
cent appointment  and  pliable  to  the  authority  that  had 
elevated  them.  The  Bishop  of  Eorae  sent  no  represent- 
ative j  nor  did  the  Bishops  of  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  and 
Alexandria.  As  they  were  under  the  rule  of  the  Sara- 
cens, they  could  not  have  done  so  even  if  they  had  wished. 
Anastasius,  who  as  we  have  before  said  had  succeeded 
Germanus  in  the  See  of  Constantinople,  was  now  in  the 


OHEISTIANITY  AND  ART.  287 

deepest  disgrace.  Having  become,  for  the  sake  of  un- 
merited promotion,  the  obedient  slave  of  Leo,  he  had  aft- 
erward abjured  the  cause  of  his  patron,  and  had  taken  a 
conspicuous  part  in  the  rebellion  of  Artabasdus.  In  ac- 
cordance with  the  customs  of  the  times,  a  terrible  penal- 
ty was  inflicted  upon  him.  By  the  order  of  his  most 
Christian  sovereign  his  eyes  were  put  out ;  he  was  then 
placed  upon  an  ass  with  his  face  to  the  tail,  and  led  in 
this  ridiculous  posture  through  the  most  public  streets  of 
the  city.  As  therefore  neither  one  of  the  five  great  patri- 
archs was  present,  either  in  person  or  by  his  delegates,  it 
fell  to  the  lot  of  Theodosius  of  Ephesus  to  preside.  Of 
an  assembly  so  constituted  only  one  thing  could  be  ex- 
pected— that  it  would  reach  a  conclusion  in  harmony 
with  the  opinions  of  the  emperor ;  and  so  it  did,  winding 
up  its  sessions,  moreover,  with  the  usual  ecclesiastical 
anathemas  against  all  who  dared  to  differ  from  it. 

At  this  point  it  may  be  well  enough  to  give  a  brief  but 
formal  statement  of  the  principal  arguments  used  by  the 
opposing  parties  in  the  controversy.  The  Iconoclasts,  as 
the  adherents  of  the  emperor  were  called,  appealed  pri- 
marily to  the  prohibition  contained  in  the  second  of  the 
ten  commandments.  They  also  adduced  the  saying  of 
Paul :  "  Though  wo  have  known  Christ  after  the  flesh, 
yet  now  know  we  him  no  more."  They  asserted  that 
image-worship  had  not  been  known  in  the  apostolic 
Church,  and  that  it  had  been  condemned  by  the  early 
Fathers.  They  alleged  that  it  involved  almost  all  the 
heresies  of  every  sort  that  had  been  condemned  by  the 


288  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

six  General  Councils.  "  If  the  painters,"  said  they,  "  only 
represented  the  humanity  of  Christ,  they  were  Nesto- 
rians ;  if  they  attempted  to  mingle  it  with  the  divinity, 
they  were  Eutychians,  circumscribing  the  Infinite  and 
confounding  the  two  substances.  It  was  impiety  to  rep- 
resent Christ  without  his  divinity,  Arianism  to  despoil 
him  of  his  godhead."  Not  even  with  such  strong  state- 
ments as  these  were  the  Iconoclasts  satisfied.  They  even 
went  so  far  as  to  proscribe  the  art  of  painting  itself,  call- 
ing it  an  impious  art,  and  forbidding  its  cultivation. 

To  all  this  the  image-worehipers  gave  quick  and  angry 
response.  The  second  commandment,  so  they  insisted, 
was  aimed  only  at  the  idolatrous  images  of  the  heathen. 
That  Moses  did  not  proscribe  all  images  was  evident  from 
the  fact  that  even  the  tabernacle  contained  the  golden 
cherubim,  and  that  Bezaleel  and  Aholiab  had  been  in- 
spired to  design  curiously-wrought  figures  for  its  cur- 
tains. The  partial  vision  of  God  to  Moses  was  pressed 
into  service  to  support  the  same  view.  It  was  further 
argued  that  since  Christ  had  actually  appeared  in  the 
flesh  it  could  not  bo  wrong  to  represent  him  in  that 
guise.  Nay,  it  was  affirmed  that  he  himself  had  sent  one 
of  his  pictures  to  Abgarus,  King  of  Edessa,  and  that  a 
statue  of  him  had  been  set  up  at  Paneas  in  Palestine  by 
the  woman  whom  ho  had  cured  of  the  issue  of  blood. 
To  crown  all  this,  marvelous  stories  were  solemnly  told 
of  the  miracles  that  had  been  wrought  by  the  numerous 
images  of  the  saints  throughout  the  Christian  world. 
The  picture  of  St.  Euphemia  at  Chrysopolis  in  Pisidia 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  ART.  289 

had  been  known,  so  the  legend  ran,  to  distill  a  healing 
balsam  from  its  right  hand,  though  it  was  reluctantly 
admitted  that  the  phenomenon  had  ceased  to  bo  visible. 
We  have  already  alluded  to  the  fact  that  the  monks 
were  solidly  in  favor  of  image-worship.  It  is  hard  to 
overestimate  the  influence  of  such  an  ignorant  and  fanat- 
ical band  of  men  when  they  are  once  thoroughly  aroused. 
"With  unanimous  voice  they  now  refused  to  submit  to  the 
decrees  of  the  Constantinopolitan  Council.  Chief  among 
them  was  a  certain  Stephen,  who  had  his  residence  in  a 
rocky  grotto  on  the  Bythinian  sea-shore.  Drawn  by  that 
subtle  instinct  which  recognizes  the  qualities  of  leader- 
ship, great  companies  of  monks  flocked  to  him  for  en- 
couragement and  counsel,  and  were  inspired  by  him  to 
continue  the  most  vigorous  resistance.  Constantino 
sought  by  all  possible  means,  but  to  no  purpose,  to  con- 
ciliate his  good-will  and  to  purchase  his  silence.  An  im- 
perial officer  of  high  rank,  with  a  substantial  present  of 
figs,  dates,  and  other  fruits,  was  sent  to  reason  with  him. 
He  not  only  remained  deaf  to  the  officer's  appeal,  but 
also  refused  to  receive  the  present,  saying  that  he  could 
take  nothing  from  the  hands  of  a  heretic.  At  a  later 
date  he  was  brought  into  the  presence  of  the  emperor 
himself.  Even  there  his  proud  and  stubborn  spirit  dis- 
played itself.  Taking  a  coin  from  under  his  robe,  ho 
said:  "Of  what  penalty  shall  I  be  thought  worthy  if  I 
trample  under  foot  the  image  of  the  emperor  which  is 
stamped  upon  this  piece  of  money  ?  Judge,  then,  how 
much  greater  punishment  I  should  deserve  if  I  were  to 
19 


290  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

despise  the  image  of  Christ."  Suiting  the  action  to  the 
word,  ho  threw  down  the  coin,  and  conteraptuously  trod 
upon  it.  That  this  dramatic  scene  was  followed  by 
nothing  more  serious  than  his  imprisonment  is  one  of  the 
surprises  of  the  time.  We  should  naturally  have  ex- 
pected him  to  be  put  to  death.  "  The  monks  unanimous- 
ly persisted  in  their  opposition  to  the  Iconoclasts.  Vio- 
lence became  a  necessity,  and  the  most  cruel  tortures 
were  employed.  Such  as  refused  to  subscribe  the  decrees 
of  the  Council  were  publicly  scourged  without  mercy, 
were  deprived  of  their  noses,  ears,  or  hands,  or  had  their 
eyes  bored  out.  Three  hundred  and  forty-two  monks, 
collected  together  from  different  districts  and  thrown  to- 
gether into  one  prison  in  Constantinople,  were  tortured 
in  this  manner."  The  opprobrious  terms  which  they 
used  concerning  the  emperor,  characterizing  him  as  a 
renegade  from  the  faith,  afforded  at  least  some  pretext 
for  this  treatment.  It  was  not  their  religious  opinions 
solely  nor  chiefly,  but  their  disloyalty,  to  which  these  se- 
vere measures  were  meted  out. 

At  the  end  of  his  reign  of  thirty  years  Constantino 
thought  that  ho  had  put  an  end  to  image-worship ;  and, 
as  far  as  outward  ajipcarances  were  concerned,  his  judg- 
ment seemed  to  be  confirmed  by  the  facts.  But  another 
turn  was  now  to  come.  Leo  IV.,  surnamed  Chazarus, 
succeeded  his  father  in  the  year  775.  His  wife  Irene,  an 
Athenian  lady,  was  of  an  imago-worshiping  family,  but 
on  the  occasion  of  her  marriage  she  had  sworn  to  give 
up  the  practice.    To  describe  her  as  one  of  the  most  o4i- 


CHRISTIANITY  AND  ART.  291 

ous  characters  in  history  is  to  put  the  matter  very  mild- 
ly. Neither  Jezebel  nor  Agrippina  nor  Catharine  de 
Medici  nor  Catharine  of  Eussia  surjjassed  her  in  the  ex- 
tent and  depth  of  her  wickedness.  Like  many  other 
persons  in  high  places  and  in  low  places,  she  looked  upon 
religion  not  as  an  inspiration  to  noble  living,  but  as  a 
substitute  for  it.  Nothing  appeared  to  her  more  certain 
than  that  she  could  atone  for  her  frequent  and  flagrant 
immoralities  by  an  excessive  display  of  superstitious  pie- 
ty. She  resolved  to  win  the  favor  of  Heaven  by  bring- 
ing back  the  images,  but  it  was  necessary  for  her  to  act 
with  sagacity  and  prudence.  Her  husband,  though  a 
weak  and  good-natured  man,  was  tenderly  attached  to 
the  memory  of  his  father,  and  would  not  have  tolerated 
any  open  attempts  to  undo  his  work.  So  the  profligate 
queen  bided  her  time,  and  did  what  she  could.  Through 
her  influence  the  monks  were  brought  back  from  their 
hiding-places.  Many  of  them  were  promoted  to  the  va- 
cant bishoprics,  and  by  every  possible  device  the  way 
was  gradually  paved  for  the  accomplishment  of  her  pur- 
poses. In  740  Leo  died,  having  reigned  only  five  years. 
This  was  the  signal  for  decisive  action.  Securing  the  re- 
gency of  the  empire  during  the  minority  of  her  son, 
Constantino  V.,  who  was  then  just  ten  yeare  old,  she 
lost  thenceforth  no  opportunity  to  carry  out  her  de- 
signs. 

The  Bishop  of  Constantinople  at  this  time  was  a  cer- 
tain Paul.  Ho  was  the  fourth  who  had  occujjied  the  of- 
fice since  Germanus,  and  was  a  very  old  man.    It  was 


292  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

suddenly  announced  that  he  had  laid  aside  his  dignities 
and  retired  to  a  monastic  cell ;  and  it  was  officially  given 
out  that  he  had  done  so  because  of  the  fact  that  his  con- 
science troubled  him  for  having  taken  part  in  the  unholy 
schemes  of  the  late  emperor  against  the  images.  It  is 
easy  to  see  that  an  influence  originating  with  Irene  had 
really  brought  about  the  abdication  of  the  patriarch  ;  and 
without  much  delay  her  chief  counselor  of  state,  Tarasi- 
as,  who  was  still  a  layman,  was  appointed  to  the  vacant 
place.  With  well-dissembled  reluctance  he  declined  to 
accept  the  advancement,  stating  that  he  could  not  con- 
sent to  occupy  a  See  that  was  cut  off  by  its  heresies  from 
the  rest  of  the  Christian  world.  But  at  last,  upon  the 
promise  that  a  new  General  Council  should  be  called  to 
re-open  the  matter  and  give  it  a  final  adjudication,  he 
was  prevailed  upon  to  waive  his  scruples  and  receive 
consecration.  These  events  took  place  in  783-4.  In  786 
the  Council  met  in  Constantinople.  Over  three  hundred 
members  were  in  attendance,  including  representatives 
from  the  Bishop  of  Kome  and  pretended  proxies  from 
the  Eastern  patriarchs.  Before  the  assembly  got  fairly  to 
work  a  band  of  soldiers,  still  loyal  to  the  faith  and  mem- 
ory of  Constantine  Copronymus,  broke  up  its  delibera- 
tions. This  rendered  some  delay  a  necessity ;  but  in  the 
next  year  the  bishops  re-assembled  in  Nicea,  on  the  other 
side  of  the  Hellespont,  a  city  already  famous  and  sacred 
as  the  place  where  the  first  great  Council  had  been  held. 
With  an  amazing  unanimity  they  decreed  the  rightful- 
ness of  image-worship.    Many  who  had  been  known  as 


CttRISTIANlTY  ANt)  A&T.  293 

avowed  Iconoclasts  professed  a  sudden  change  of  mind, 
and  with  the  most  cowardly  alacrity  joined  in  anathemas 
against  the  doctrines  which  they  had  so  lately  defended. 
With  one  voice  they  broke  out  into  a  long  acclamation : 
"  We  all  believe,  we  all  assent,  we  all  subscribe.  This  is 
the  faith  of  the  apostles,  this  is  the  faith  of  the  Church, 
this  is  the  faith  of  the  orthodox,  this  is  the  farth  of  all 
the  world.  We  who  adore  the  Trinity  worship  images. 
Whoever  does  not  the  like,  anathema  upon  him !  Anath- 
ema on  all  who  call  images  idols  !  Anathema  on  all  who 
communicate  with  them  who  do  not  worship  images  I 
Anathema  upon  Theodosius,  falsely  called  Bishop  of  Eph- 
esuB ! "  We  have  not  time  to  go  farther  with  the  curses 
of  these  holy  fathers,  or  with  the  acts  of  the  Seventh 
Ecumenical  Council. 

As  Constantino  Y.  approached  manhood  he  grew  rest- 
ive under  the  control  of  his  mother,  and  tried  hard  to 
throw  it  off;  but  Irene  had  consummate  tact,  and  held 
the  reins  with  a  tightening  grasp.  At  last,  after  long 
continued  recriminations,  there  came  an  open  rupture. 
Constantine,  aware  of  the  fact  that  he  was  really  a  pris- 
oner in  his  own  capital,  tried  to  flee,  and  did  actually 
reach  the  Asiatic  shore;  but  he  was  arrested,  brought 
back  to  Constantinople,  and  by  his  mother's  express  or- 
ders, and  in  the  very  porphyry  chamber  in  which  he  had 
been  bom,  was  blinded  with  such  circumstances  of  hor- 
rible brutality  as  endangered  his  Hfe.  Well  may  Dean 
Milman  say:  "Among  the  few  instances  in  the  annals  of 
mankind  in  which  ambition  and  the  love  of  sway  have 


294  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THBOLOGY. 

quenched  the  maternal  feeling,  that  strongest  and  purest 
impulse  of  human  nature,  is  this  crime  committed  against 
her  son  by  the  Empress  Irene."  This  wretched  woman 
now  had  undisputed  sovereignty,  and  for  five  years  ruled 
the  empire  without  a  rival. 

During  the  reigns  of  Nicephorus  (802-811)  and  of  Mi- 
chael Rhangabe  (811-813)  the  controversy  was  in  abey- 
ance. It  broke  out  again  when  Leo  YI.,  the  Armenian 
(813-821),  came  to  the  throne,  continued  during  the 
reign  of  Michael  the  Stammerer  (821-829),  a»d  reached 
the  very  height  of  its  virulence  under  his  son  and  suc- 
cessor, Theophilus  (829).  This  last-named  monarch 
shares  with  Constantine  Copronymus  the  fate  of  being 
the  best-abused  man  in  history.  He  is  denounced  by  his 
monkish  historians  as  the  very  embodiment  of  all  that  is 
base  and  vile.  Upon  his  death  his  widow,  Theodora,  re- 
peated the  part  of  Irene,  being  enabled  to  do  it  by  the 
fact  that  her  son  Michael  the  Drunkard,  in  whose  name 
she  ruled,  was  yet  very  young.  Though  devotedly  at- 
tached to  the  memory  of  her  husband,  who  she  avowed 
had  recanted  his  heresies  on  his  death-bed,  she  yet  threw 
her  whole  soul  into  the  work  of  restoring  the  objects 
which  it  had  been  the  supreme  aim  of  his  life  to  destroy; 
and  she  succeeded.  At  a  synod  held  in  842  the  images 
were  again  ordered  to  be  introduced  into  the  churches. 
The  day  on  which  this  decree  was  enacted,  February  19, 
has  ever  since  been  celebrated  in  the  Eastern  Church  as 
the  «  Feast  of  Orthodoxy." 

It  is  to  be  noted  as  a  peculiar  phenomenon  that  while 


Cfi&ISTlANlTY  AND  ART.  295 

the  Popes  of  Eome,  the  recognized  heads  of  the  "Western 
Church,  were  throughout  the  whole  long  and  tedious 
controverey  on  the  side  of  the  image-worshipers,  yet  the 
Frankish  Church,  in  the  Frankfort  Synod  of  794,  and  in 
the  libri  Garolini,  which  are  with  almost  certainty  as- 
cribed to  Charlemagne  himself,  took  up  the  opposite  po- 
sition, though  not  going  as  far  as  the  Eastern  Iconoclasts; 
and  it  was  nearly  two  centuries  before  it  fell  into  line 
with  the  prevailing  belief. 

If  now  we  ask  for  the  reasons  why  this  crusade  against 
image-worship  failed,  various  answers  may  be  given.  In 
the  first  place,  the  Iconoclasts  were  themselves  inconsist- 
ent. While  opposing  images  of  the  saints,  they  yet  al- 
lowed and  encouraged  the  worship  of  the  saints  them- 
selves, and  especially  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  They  also 
contradicted  their  own  fundamental  principle  by  paying 
special  reverence  to  the  symbol  of  the  cross.  Secondly, 
they  were  premature.  It  was  impossible  to  spiritualize 
at  once,  and  in  an  age  of  general  darkness,  a  worship 
that  had  been  debased  by  centuries  of  false  teaching  and 
wrong  practice.  Thirdly,  their  efforts  were  of  a  purely 
negative  character.  They  wished  to  take  away  some- 
thing that  was  most  highly  prized,  and  to  put  nothing  in 
its  place.  They  had  no  grand  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith,  as  the  Eeformers  of  the  sixteenth  century  had, 
to  substitute  for  the  mummeries  of  the  Church.  Fourth- 
ly, they  were  in  ignorance  of  the  truth  that  great  and 
permanent  religious  reformation  must  have  a  popular 
character,  must  proceed  from  below  upward,  and  not 


296  DI8CU88ION8  IN  THEOLOGY. 

from  above  downward.  This  was  true  even  in  the  En- 
glish reformation,  for  the  movements  of  Henry  VIII. 
would  never  have  been  successful  if  they  had  not  been 
in  line  with  the  national  feeling. 

The  consequences  of  this  Iconoclastic  controversy  were 
twofold.  Without  a  doubt  it  so  separated  the  Eastern 
empire  into  parties  and  robbed  it  of  its  natural  strength 
as  to  disqualify  it  for  successfully  resisting  the  advances 
of  the  Mohammedans.  On  the  other  hand,  by  alienating 
the  Bishop  of  Eome  from  the  Emperors  of  Constantino- 
ple it  led  to  the  introduction  of  Pepin  and  Charlemagne 
into  Italy  and  to  the  alliance  b«etween  the  Church  and 
the  Teutons.  These  are  mere  hints.  They  may  be  fol- 
lowed out  to  most  interesting  conclusions,  for  events  in 
this  world  are  not  single  and  alone.  They  are  interlaced 
with  one  another  in  the  invisible  but  none  the  less  real 
bonds  of  cause  and  effect;  and  it  is  scarcely  saying  too 
much  to  affirm  that  the  whole  course  of  medifeval  and 
modern  politics  has  been  affected  more  or  less  by  these 
schemes  and  counter  schemes  of  the  more  than  half- 
heathen  rulers  of  the  Eastern  Eoman  Empire. 


THE  CHRIST-PAINTINGS  OF 
MUNKACSY, 


OuB  artist  toiled  for  years  in  obscurity.  He  wrested 
power  to  portray  with  color  from  most  adverse  circum- 
stances. He  ever  thought,  while  he  was  employing  his 
hands,  to  obtain  mastery  of  the  artist's  brush.  His  great 
aim  was  to  express  mighty  truths  with  fidelity  and  power. 
He  triumphed.  This  biography  of  the  artist  is  definite 
enough  for  our  purpose.  Dropping  out  the  details  of  birth, 
parents,  place,  time,  education,  and  end,  his  biography 
is  not  materially  different  from  that  of  most  masters. 

Munkacsy's  two  Christ-paintings  are  "Christ  before 
Pilate"  and  "Christ  on  the  Cross."  The  subjects  are 
great  subjects.  It  was  daring  for  an  obscure  artist  to 
undertake  to  give  the  theme  a  treatment.  Only  one  con- 
scious of  genius  would  have  had  courage  to  try.  Mun- 
kacsy's success  was  as  remarkable  as  his  courage.  Our 
study  will  be  directed  first  to  his  painting, 
"Christ  before  Pilate." 

Simply  with  the  persons  in  the  painting  will  we  be  con- 
cerned. Yet  that  bit  of  deep-blue  sky,  seen  through  one 
of  the  open  archways  of  the  Prjetorium  and  the  one- 
storied,  one-roomed  house  on  the  hill,  will  tell  to  the 
observer  that  the  artist  understood  the  philosophy  of  con- 


298  DiSCtfSSIONS  IN  TSEOLOOY. 

trast.  The  blue  of  sky  and  the  dull  light  of  the  Prseto- 
rium,  the  calm  of  the  home  and  the  clamor  of  the  court- 
room are  in  this  manner  revealed.  Moreover,  that  view 
through  this  archway  gives  a  perfect  picture  of  the  life 
of  the  common  people  of  Palestine  to-day. 

The  picture  has  in  it  seven  groups,  each  containing 
three  persons.  Our  study  will  be  an  unfolding  of  these 
groups. 

Group  1, — Christ,  Pilate,  Caiaphas.  ("  Whom  ye 
obey.") 

The  figure  of  Christ  departs  from  all  previous  types 
which  artists  have  employed.  There  is  not  a  single  con- ' 
ventional  sign,  not  any  symbol  present.  He  is  simply  a 
man.  Yet  how  unlike  other  men!  He  is  a  man  in  abso- 
lute calm.  A  seething  storm  of  hateful  passions  is  be- 
hind him.  It  dashes  against  him  as  on  an  immovable 
rock.  His  quiet,  erect  attitude  expresses  a  noble,  intel- 
ligent resignation.  Gethsemane  had  witnessed  the  strug- 
gle and  the  victory.  Thereafter,  he  would  be  unmoved 
by  what  man  could  do.  This  resignation  is  no  yielding 
to  a  necessity.  Christ  has  not  braced  himself  to  meet 
his  doom.  His  resignation  is  intelligent,  for  he  knows 
what  must  come  to  pass.  It  is  noble,  for  he  is  undisturbed 
by  the  vulgar  hate  of  his  foes.  One  emotion  alone  is 
portrayed  in  this  reposeful  man.  It  lights  up  his  face. 
It  is  an  emotion  of  loving  i>ity.  His  searching  eye  is  on 
Pilate.  That  look  reveals  the  struggle  of  the  Roman 
governor  who  was  "  willing  to  release  Jesus ; "  he  was  also 
"willing  to  content  the  people."     There  was  no  doubt 


THE  CflRIST-tAlNTlNOS  OV  MtTNKACSY.  299 

about  its  issue.  Yet  this  struggle  of  truth,  in  a  heart  too 
weak  for  victory,  awakened  the  tenderest  sympathy  and 
love  in  the  Christ.  This  emotion  at  such  a  time  and  to- 
ward such  a  one  is  divine.  Its  presence  on  the  face  of 
Christ  is  a  truer  symbol  of  his  divinity  than  all  the  con- 
ventional symbols  ever  employed  to  indicate  divinity. 
Tender  pity  for  a  struggling  man  is  the  only  feeling  por- 
trayed in  the  Christ  of  Munkacsy.  All  else  is  a  noble, 
intelligent  resignation. 

Pilate  is  no  weak,  fickle  man.  He  is  a  man  of  decis- 
ion. The  words  of  the  high-priests  do  not  move  him. 
The  case  before  him,  he  knows,  is  one  urged  simply  for 
"  envy."  He  himself  "  can  find  no  fault "  in  the  accused. 
But  as  governor  he  must  avoid  a  civil  uprising.  He  well 
knew  the  fanatical  fury  of  a  Jewish  rabble,  when  excited 
to  violence.  Such  a  result  must  be  avoided.  The  death 
of  an  innocent  man  would  restore  peace.  It  was  true 
that  he  quailed  at  the  calm  gravity  and  unmoved  courage 
of  this  man.  He  "marveled"  at  the  answers  given  to 
his  questions.  The  message  of  his  wife  troubled  him. 
So  on  his  fingers  he  seems  to  weigh  the  arguments  of 
the  case.  His  alert  eye,  looking  now  not  at  men  but  at 
reasons  which  must  influence  his  judgment,  indicate  the 
Eoman  prudence  in  political  crises.  He  is  altogether  in- 
different to  the  justice  of  what  is  pressed  upon  his  atten- 
tion in  the  Prffitorium.  The  moment  of  decision  has  ar- 
rived. There  sounds  in  his  ear  the  unrelenting  cry: 
"Crucify  him."  Policy,  not  justice,  rules  the  Roman 
governor  in  his  decision. 


300  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

Caiaphas  stands  before  Pilate  in  the  attitude  of  tri- 
umph, his  right  hand  pointing  to  the  clamorous  people, 
and  his  left  hand  extended  in  front  and  below,  while  his 
face  indicates  almost  intolerance  of  delay  before  such 
proof.  The  oft-repeated  words  of  the  governor,  "  I  find 
no  fault  in  him,"  seemed  at  first  to  promise  a  refuge  for 
the  Christ.  Hope,  however,  came  when  Pilate  asked: 
"Whether  of  the  twain  will  ye  that  I  release  unto 
you  ?  "  Here  the  judge  made  concession.  He  could  not 
retract.  This  is  the  moment  seized  by  the  artist.  Pilate 
has  asked  the  question.  The  people  in  the  background 
answer.  The  high-priest  triumphantly  points  to  the  re- 
sponse.   The  case  at  that  moment  was  adjudged. 

The  personages  of  this  group  are  representatives  of 
highest  authority.  Pilate  is  the  representative  of  a  mili- 
tary power;  Caiaphas  is  the  head  of  a  most  absolute 
hierarchical  power;  Christ  is  the  King  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  The  strength  of  the  first  power  is  the  sword 
and  the  spear;  of  the  second,  a  fanatical,  blind,  degrading 
devotion  to  religious  forms ;  of  the  third,  a  vital,  coura- 
geous, self-sacrificing  manhood,  devoted  to  such  truth  as 
exalts  all  human  life.  The  Christ  in  the  presence  of  both 
powers,  arrayed  in  simple  garments,  strong  in  a  no- 
ble, intelligent  resignation  to  their  present  supremacy, 
touched  into  a  tender,  pitying  sympathy  for  the  struggle 
of  Pilate,  becomes  with  each  following  year  the  conquer- 
or ;  while  Caiaphas,  in  priestly  robes  of  gorgeous  splendor, 
surrounded  by  his  fanatical  adherents,  and  Pilate,  in  the 
simple  toga  of  the  Eoman  people,  and  with  the  irresistible 


THE  CHRIST-PAINTINCIS  OF  MUNKAC8Y.  301 

soldier  before  him  to  do  his  bidding,  are  being  forgotten, 
or  only  remembered  as  mighty  powers  which  have  crum- 
bled. The  unity  of  this  group  is  found  in  the  represent- 
ative character  of  the  persons  of  which  it  is  composed. 

Geoup  2.— The  Shouting  Babble.     («  Crucify  him.") 

Three  within  the  Prsetorium  illustrate  this  crowd. 
One  stands  in  front  of  the  soldier.  He  has  both  arms 
extended  upward,  and  is  shouting  vociferously :  "  Crucify 
him."  Far  back  in  the  crowd  appear  another  pair  of 
arms,  thrown  out  in  the  same  manner,  and  the  head  be- 
tween them  is  that  of  one  who  makes  the  same  outcry : 
"  Crucify  him."  A  figure,  rising  above  the  others,  stand- 
ing apparently  on  one  of  the  wall  seats  of  this  judgment- 
hall,  stretches  out  his  arm,  and,  with  the  index  finger 
pointing  scornfully  to  the  Christ,  seems  to  say:  "Away 
with  this  fellow."  These  are  the  witnesses  that  the 
high-priest  triumphantly  refers  to,  in  order  to  show  Pilate 
the  wish  of  the  people. 

Group  3. — The  Whispering  Mockers.  ("They  mock 
him.") 

They  are  the  three  immediately  behind  Christ.  The 
one  just  back  of  the  Christ  is  the  common  Pharisee,  and 
his  face  and  his  hand  seem  to  unite  in  expressing  a  sneer. 
His  words  might  almost  be:  "This  fellow  here  is  the  one 
who  said,  'Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will 
raise  it  up.' "  The  bald-headed  man  to  the  right  is  the 
one  who  gloats  over  another's  misfortune.  He  stands  by, 
listening  to  every  utterance,  and  chuckles  over  every  ad- 
verse saying.    This  character  is  always  worse  than  a 


302  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOIiOGY. 

sneerer.  To  the  right  is  one  vile  fellow,  leaning  over  the 
hairier  and  seeking  to  see  the  effect  of  the  trial  on  the 
Christ.  He  is  a  scoffer.  His  soul  is  not  large  enough  to 
behold  any  excellence,  unless  it  be  arrayed  in  the  gar- 
ments of  power.  The  idea  of  a  man,  who  claimed  to  be 
King  of  the  Jews,  with  hands  bound  and  a  face  which 
seemed  to  his  coarse  mind  like  a  woman's,  was  a  matter 
of  scoffing.  Those  nearest  to  Christ  in  the  time  of  his 
public  trial  are  mocking  him. 

Group  4. — The  Perplexed  Beholders.  ("  So  there  was  a 
division  among  them.") 

The  three  representing  this  group  are  widely  separate. 
One  stands  bolt  upright  against  the  wall,  "his  uplifted 
face  expressing  a  commingling  of  curiosity  and  con- 
tempt," Another  is  the  man  of  the  common  people,  to 
the  left  of  the  soldier.  On  the  face  of  this  one  is  a  look 
of  inquiry,  as  if  he  would  know  the  Christ.  The  woman 
holding  the  child  is  the  third,  who  "  is  looking  compas- 
sionately, almost  believingly,  on  Christ."  She  may  per- 
haps be  the  wife  of  Pilate,  who  said  to  him :  "  Have  thou 
nothing  to  do  with  this  just  man."  It  seems  as  if  she 
had  stepped  into  the  Praetorium,  coming  out  of  the  door 
of  the  palace  behind  her,  in  order  to  view  the  Christ. 

Groups  2,  3,  and  4  are  groups  of  the  people.  They  in- 
dicate the  state  of  the  divided  public  opinion  concerning 
the  Christ.  These  groups  are  all  back  of  the  accused, 
and  reflect  as  in  a  mirror  the  sentiment  awakened  by  his 
works  and  claims.  There  are  throe  remaining  groups, 
and  thesQ  are  in  front  of  the  Christ, 


THE  CHRIST-PAINTINGS  OF  MUNKAC8Y.  303 

Group  5. — The  Debating  Doctors.  ("  "Who  is  this  which 
speaketh  blasphemies  ?  ") 

These  three  are  apart  in  heated  discussion.  The  vehe- 
ment eloquence  of  Caiaphas  does  not  attract  them.  The 
importance  of  the  decision  of  Pilate  cannot  hold  their 
attention.  They  will  quibble  over  points  and  speculate 
over  the  Tightness  or  wrongness  of  tenets  or  whatever 
conflicts  with  them,  even  when  a  decision  is  impending, 
that  writes  a  death-warrant  to  all  their  little  but  much 
spun  out  doctrines.  The  face  of  one  is  turned  Christ- 
ward.  His  left  hand  rests  on  the  partition  which  shuts 
them  in  from  the  rest.  It  is  partly  closed,  and  has  the 
position  which  the  hand  takes  in  moments  of  indecision. 
The  one  opposite  him  is  in  earnest  debate.  The  bony, 
unnourishcd  hand  of  this  roasoner,  with  the  first  finger 
protruded,  tells  of  the  irrefutable  conclusions  of  its  owner. 
The  hand  and  the  face  of  this  learned  man  are  warning 
sufficient,  for  all  who  behold  them,  to  teach  the  folly  and 
the  danger  of  such  erudition  as  has  its  greatest  merit  in 
disputing  and  establishing,  after  this  fashion,  religious  be- 
liefs. The  third  one  of  this  group  is  far  back ;  he  is  neg- 
ative, his  beliefs  are  those  of  his  compeers.  He  learned 
them  in  the  schools ;  there  is  nothing  in  heaven  or  earth 
that  can  now  unsettle  them.  Still  a  discussion  of  doc- 
tors is  more  to  him  than  the  anxiety  of  the  high-priest 
to  secure  the  condemnation  of  the  Christ. 

Group  6. — The  Fanatical  Priests.  ("But  the  chief 
priests  moved  the  people  that  he  should  i-athor  release 
Bftrabbas  unto  them.") 


304  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

This  group  sit  on  the  steps  of  the  boma,  one  on  the 
left  and  two  on  the  right  of  Pilate.  The  one  farthest 
from  Pilate  and  next  to  the  scornful  Pharisee,  who  stands 
high  and  looks  down  in  scorn  upon  the  Christ,  is  lost  in 
deep  thought.  He  lets  the  whole  scene  pass  by  without 
his  observing  the  course  of  events.  The  life  of  the  Christ 
had  impressed  him.  He  was  concerned  with  its  import. 
He  seems  to  be  one  who  constantly  inquired  of  himself: 
"  What  if  this  man  be  the  Messiah  ?  "  The  priest  nearest 
to  this  one,  and  so  to  the  right  of  Pilate,  looks  into  the 
face  of  the  Eoman  governor.  The  priest  on  the  other 
side  of  Pilate  is  looking  at  Caiaphas.  The  faces  of  this 
pair  reflect  the  curse  resting  on  every  priesthood  which 
forgets  that  its  function  is  to  inspire  religious  character 
in  men  rather  than  a  blind  devotion  in  them  to  religious 
fonns.  A  priesthood,  shell-bound  in  creeds  and  forms,  is 
the  priesthood  of  which  these  two  priests  are  represent- 
atives. There  is  not  a  kindly  line  in  either  face.  The 
one  on  the  right  has  a  face  directed  toward  him  who  holds 
the  power  of  decision,  and  on  it  is  painted  an  anxious 
fear.  The  other  is  almost  wolfish  in  his  attitude ;  he  sees 
the  evident  triumph  of  the  high-priest,  and  he  is  ready 
now  to  pounce  out  and  add  now  abuse  to  the  Christ,  for 
whose  blood  he  thirsts. 

Group  7. — The  Soldier,  the  Pharisee,  the  Sadducee. 
("His  servants  are  ye.") 

This  group  is  to  be  taken  with  the  first  group.  The 
six  figures  in  the  two  groups  display  the  highest  art  of 
the  artist.    They  form  a  kind  of  circle.     (The  soldier  is 


THE  CHRIST-PAINTINGS  OF  MUNKAC8Y.  305 

not  in  the  circumference,  still  his  spear-head  indicates 
his  place.)  They  display  the  secret  of  power.  Christ  is 
bound.  The  one  with  divinest  authority  is  Christ,  yet 
he  is  without  a  servant.  Nevertheless,  alone  of  all  who 
are  clad  with  authority  stands  Christ,  unmoved,  confi- 
dent, strong.  Pilate,  vicar  of  the  Eoman  power,  has  his 
servant  in  the  Eoman  soldier.  Strength  and  courage  are 
revealed  in  this  servant.  As  a  Hercules  he  stands,  per- 
fectly unmoved  by  the  roar  of  the  rabble.  He  is  the 
check  upon  that  wild,  shouting  mob.  His  master,  Pilate, 
is  in  perplexity.  Yet  he  has  at  his  beck  this  foi-ce,  which 
he  could  employ  to  sweep  clear  of  the  presence  of  this 
crowd  the  whole  Prsetorium.  Pilate  is  not  disturbed  by 
the  uproar ;  he  is  simply  weighing  the  gravity  of  the 
present  case.  Shall  he  put  to  death  a  man  in  whom  he 
can  find  no  fault,  and  thus  prevent  a  religious  riot ;  or 
banish  the  rabble  and  all  from  his  presence,  and  save  the 
innocent  ?  Prudence,  not  justice,  will  rule  him ;  his  sol- 
dier shall  not  be  employed  to  establish  justice.  Between 
Christ  and  the  high-priest  sits  the  Pharisee.  He  is 
nearest  tho  high-priest.  He  looks  with  scornful  contempt 
at  Christ.  This  Pharisee  is  the  servant  of  the  high-priest. 
He  has  wealth  and  religious  position.  Ho  will  not  quib- 
ble over  points  of  the  law  or  any  doctrine  which  conflicts 
with  his  faith.  Such  desiccating  discussions  he  will 
leave  to  tho  doctors.  He  will  not  be  bound  by  customs, 
except  as  to  outward  conformance.  Bigoted  adherence  to 
them  he  loaves  to  tho  priests.  The  luxurious  ease  of  his 
life  shall  not  bo  encroached  upon  by  such  fanatical  servi- 
20 


806  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

tude.  He  has  a  deadly  hatred  of  the  Galilean  who  dares 
say :  "  Thou  blind  Pharisee,  cleanse  first  that  which  is 
within  the  cup."  "Wealth  and  an  outward  observance  of 
religious  forms  are  the  strength  of  the  servant  of  the 
high-priest.  The  Sadducee  is  a  type  of  the  Hellenized 
Jew.  He  has  a  religious  faith,  but  it  is  a  kind  of  Hebrew 
Platonism.  The  refinements  of  life  procured  by  wealth 
and  the  imaginative  pleasures  of  thought  are  all  consist- 
ent with  his  creed.  Such  a  one  is  free  of  the  bigotry  of  a 
Pharisee  and  has  closest  kinship  with  Pilate.  Thus  we 
find  him  sitting  near  the  Eoman  governor,  apart  from 
all  the  rest.  He  is  a  servant  to  religion,  so  far  as  it  may 
please  his  taste  ;  he  is  also  servant  to  the  civil  power,  so 
far  as  it  may  contribute  to  security  and  pleasure.  This 
seventh  group  is  characterized  by  the  most  expensive 
robes  and  uniforms.  They  are  arrayed  in  the  livery  of 
the  powers  they  serve.  The  meanest  face  of  them  all,  if 
we  may  imagine  how  the  face  of  the  soldier  looks,  is  this 
Pharisee,  who  holds  in  thought  a  noble  creed,  but  only 
outwardly  confonns  to  it.  He  is  the  most  contemptible 
character. 

The  picture  concentrates  a  whole  epoch  of  Jewish  his- 
tory and  what  is  contemporary  to  it  in  one  assemblage. 
It  grades  correctly  the  worth  fulness  of  the  religious  faith 
in  men.  It  declares,  in  unmistakable  language,  that  the 
only  conquering  power  in  a  religion  is  not  its  doctors,  nor 
its  priests,  but  simply  the  man  whose  only  authority  is 
his  faith  in  his  words  and  a  worthy  life  wrought  out 
under  the  power  of  his  faith.    Such  a  religion — the 


THE  CHRIST-PAINTINGS  OP  MUNKAC8Y.  307 

Christ  religion — is  calm  and  kind  in  the  presence  of  all 
opposition.  Surprise  and  admiration  take  hold  of  us  at 
beholding  in  a  painting  all  this  complex  truth  vividly- 
portrayed.  Great  surprise  and  nobler  admiration  fill  us 
when  we  see  that  not  symbolical  figures  are  employed, 
but  living  men,  to  utter  this  truth.  A  work  created  un- 
der such  insight,  and  with  such  fidelity  to  eternal  fact, 
must  place  the  author  among  the  greatest  of  artists. 

We  now  turn  to  consider  the  second  great  painting, 
"Christ  on  the  Cross." 

This  picture  has  in  it  seven  groups,  and  in  each  group 
there  are  three  persons. 

Group  1. — Christ  and  the  Two  Thieves.  ("And  with 
him  they  crucified  two  thieves.") 

The  Christ  is  a  dead  man  on  the  cross.  Two  other 
crosses  stand  erected  near  his — one  on  his  left  and  one  on 
his  right.  On  each  is  nailed  a  man  still  alive.  These 
are  the  two  thieves.  The  absence  of  all  signs  of  muscu- 
lar life  in  the  Christ  is  proof  positive  that  he  is  dead. 
Already  have  been  spoken  the  words :  "  Father,  into  thy 
hands  I  commend  my  spirit."  The  knitted  brow  and 
protruded,  compressed  lips  of  the  thief  on  the  left  hand 
indicate  life.  His  face  indicates  hardened,  desperate 
character  meeting  doggedly  its  just  reward.  He  must 
hang  until  death.  As  the  world  disowns  him,  he  disowns 
it.  A  dying  Christ  does  not  move  his  stolid  indiflference. 
The  thief  on  the  right  holds  his  head  turned  toward  the 
Christ.  This  muscular  efibrt  bespeaks  life.  His  face 
has  not  a  tender  line  in  it ;  all  its  signs  arc  as  foreboding 


308  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

as  the  threatening  sky  above ;  still  on  it,  as  on  the  sky, 
some  light  seems  breaking.  This  man  with  his  face 
darkened  by  a  vicious  life,  yet  with  a  glimmer  of  hope 
breaking  through  the  shadows  of  evil  which  obscure  his 
countenance,  is  the  penitent  thief.  At  least  his  face  is 
now  in  the  right  direction. 

The  Christ  on  the  cross  is  a  dead  man.  The  head  is 
thrown  back  and  to  the  left,  the  lips  parted.  The  final 
muscular  effort  was  to  raise  the  head  toward  heaven  to 
breathe  the  prayer  which  committed  his  spirit  to  the 
Father.  Life  ended  with  that  prayer.  This  dead  body 
of  the  Christ  is  aglow  with  light.  Through  the  dark, 
pall-like  clouds  bursts  light,  and  it  falls  on  him  who  has 
just  died.  It  is  a  double  symbol:  it  signifies  that  the 
prayer  has  been  answered.  The  Father  has  received  the 
spirit  of  his  well-beloved  Son.  It  signifies  also  that  the 
death  of  Christ  is  light-bringing  to  the  earth  all  envel- 
oped in  darkness.  We  may  forget  for  a  moment  these 
greater  truths,  and  attend  to  a  lesser  one,  yet  one  of  mo- 
mentous importance.  Our  eyes  see  three  human  bodies 
exposed  to  view.  If  our  bodies  be  "  temples  of  God,"  we 
may  behold  in  these  bodies  the  transforming  power  of 
the  worship  within.  We  shudder  at  the  coarseness  of  the 
bodies  of  the  thieves.  They  were  temples  of  dissipation, 
of  ignoble  thought,  base  feelings,  and  vile  deeds.  But 
the  fineness  of  the  lines  of  the  body  of  Christ  impresses 
us.  The  worship  within  this  temple  was  moderation 
and  obedience  to  Nature's  laws ;  while  holy,  noble 
thought  and  holy  feeling  had  wrought  their  sweetness 


THE  CHRIST-PAINTINGS  OF  MUNKACSY.  309 

on  every  line  of  the  face.  Death  has  no  power  to  de- 
stroy them. 

Group  2. — Mary  the  Mother,  Mary  the  Magdalene, 
John  the  Disciple.     ("  Let  not  your  hearts  be  troubled.") 

The  group  which  we  have  just  considered  is  a  group  of 
three,  the  only  common  tie  being  outward  simply  and 
expressed  by  the  crosses.  All  else  is  diflferent.  The  sec- 
ond group  of  three  is  placed  about  the  cross :  it  is  Mary 
the  mother,  Mary  the  Magdalene,  John  the  disciple.  The 
uniting  bond  is  a  grief  too  deep  to  be  moved.  When  the 
Christ  "  cried  with  a  loud  voice  "  it  aroused  others ;  it 
left  these  three  undisturbed.  Mary  the  mother  kneels 
prostrate  upon  the  cross  with  her  hands  clasped,  touch- 
ing the  feet  of  Jesus ;  she  hangs  her  weight  on  the  cross. 
The  right  side  of  her  face  alone  is  seen.  Helplessly  her 
head  falls  on  her  left  fore-arm.  Death  had  suspended  all 
muscular  action  in  the  body  of  her  son  above  her ;  grief 
now  staid  all  muscular  action  within  her.  The  mother 
love  suffers  helpless  gi'ief  through  loss  of  the  son.  Or  if 
it  has  any  help,  it  is  only  in  the  support  of  the  cross, 
which  keeps  her  from  falling  prostrate  upon  the  ground. 
Mary  the  Magdalene  is  to  her  left.  Her  figure  is  that  of 
a  young  woman.  Streaming  golden,  hair  falls  down  her 
back.  She  is  kneeling,  but  with  the  body  thrown  back- 
ward. Her  face  is  covered  with  her  agitated  hands.  A 
moment  before  grief  had  convulsed  her  frame.  It  passed, 
and  loft  as  if  petrified  the  signs  of  its  violence.  One 
might  almost  feel  justified  in  concluding,  from  the  posi- 
tion of  the  head  of  the  Christ  and  the  attitude  of  the 


310  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

Magdalene,  that  the  loving  Master  in  his  last  moments 
had  cast  a  kind,  encouraging  look  to  the  woman  whose 
past  was  filled  with  such  unspeakable  soitow,  then  raised 
his  head  and  commended  his  spirit  to  the  Father ;  that  at 
the  moment  when  he  raised  his  head  toward  the  heavens 
the  Magdalene,  deprived  of  its  sweet  encouragement,  con- 
vulsively threw  her  hands  over  her  face  and  became  mo- 
tionless through  her  sorrow.  John  the  disciple  stands  as 
lifeless  as  a  cross,  his  head  inclined  downward,  as  if  look- 
ing at  Mary  the  mother.  No  sign  of  grief  save  its  awful 
stillness.  The  type  of  the  head  chosen  for  John  portrays 
his  character.  It  has  great  depth,  and  from  it  descends 
over  the  shoulders  and  neck  abundant,  wavy  hair.  The 
face,  as  it  is  seen  in  profile,  has  the  tenderness  of  a  wom- 
an, which  because  of  his  manly  force  is  not  obscured  by 
the  fullness  of  his  sorrow.  He  in  his  grief  is  still  mind- 
ful of  the  last  charge  given  him  by  his  Master.  One  al- 
most suspects  that  the  coloring  of  this  group  has  in  it  a 
secret.  The  dark  robe  of  the  mother  suggests  a  sorrow 
that  well-nigh  robs  of  life.  The  sword  has  entered  her 
heart.  The  blue  robe  of  the  Magdalene,  deep  as  the  heav- 
en's blue,  rightly  clothes  her  whose  love  is  founded  on 
deepest  gratitude,  and  so  must  be  as  true  as  the  beatings 
of  her  heart.  John  is  clad  in  a  long  cloak,  a  deep,  warm 
red,  rightly  suggesting  a  nature  whose  every  thought 
was  love  for  the  Christ. 

Group  3. — Mary,  Wife  of  Cleophas,  the  Converted  Cen- 
turion, and  the  Lad.     ("I  am  the  light  of  the  world.") 

A  group  of  three  is  now  to  be  considered,  who  are 


THE  CHRIST-PAINTINGS  OP  MUNKACST.  311 

widely  separated  in  the  picture.  It  is  composed  of  Mary, 
wife  of  Cleophas,  the  converted  centurion,  and  the  lad  in 
the  foreground  of  the  picture.  The  outward  signs  which 
bind  these  three  in  a  group  are  physical  attitudes.  "  Jesus 
had  cried  with  a  loud  voice."  Mary,  wife  of  Cleophas, 
rises,  leans  her  head  backward  to  gain  a  view  of  the 
Christ,  extends  her  arras  upward,  and  holds  supine  her 
hands.  This  attitude  is  natural  to  those  in  devotion.  An 
authority  on  gesture  gives  such  elements  as  making  up 
the  physical  action  for  the  expression  of  the  words, "  Hail, 
universal  Lord !  "  This  Mary  had  followed  her  sorrow- 
ing sister,  led  by  feelings  of  kinship.  The  lofty  claims  of 
the  one,  being  led  to  the  cross,  had  not  been  acknowledged 
through  such  experience  as  made  the  mother  see  in  her 
son  also  her  God;  by  such  revelation  of  love  through 
close  friendship  as  taught  John  that  his  friend  was  also 
his  God ;  by  such  compassionate  love  and  divine  encour- 
agement as  made  the  Magdalene  see  in  her  Saviour  even 
her  God.  Mary,  wife  of  Cleophas,  was  one  of  the  many 
good  ones  of  that  time  who  waited  for  light.  She  was 
true-hearted,  so  she  hesitated  not  to  follow  her  nephew 
to  a  disgrace  which  he  had  not  merited.  She  had  as- 
sumed the  attitude  of  sorrow.  She  had  been  kneeling. 
The  final  words  of  the  dying  relative  were  heard.  But 
the  last  words,  "  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend  my 
spirit,"  uttered  in  a  loud  voice,  opened  the  mystery  of  his 
life  to  her,  "My  Father"  alone  justified  the  claims  of 
the  Christ.  In  an  instant,  like  a  lightning  flash,  the 
Messiah,  the  Hope  of  Israel,  is  revealed.    She  has  found 


312  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

the  Christ,  and  joy  and  worship  animate  her  face  and 
form.  The  converted  centurion  has  his  left  arm  extend- 
ed and  his  hand  vertical,  the  position  of  awe.  His  right 
hand  is  by  his  ear,  to  catch  the  words,  and  is  indicative 
of  joy.  Those  final  words,  uttered  with  a  loud  voice,  have 
reached  him ;  suddenly  their  meaning  flashes  upon  him, 
and  awe  and  joy  possesses  him.  He  says:  "Truly  this 
was  the  Son  of  God."  The  lad  is  the  final  figure  in  this 
group.  A  vulgar  curiosity  has  led  him  out  of  the  city  to 
see  the  sight  of  men  crucified.  He  acted  under  the  same 
motive  as  leads  many  to-day  to  see  a  "  hanging."  It  was 
all  over.  Most  were  moving  away,  he  with  them.  When 
that  loud  voice  met  his  ear,  he  turned  and  became  the 
embodiment  of  surprise.  Here,  too,  we  trace  the  secret 
of  the  color,  if  we  pause.  The  dress  of  this  group  is  a 
shade  of  gray,  each  different  in  tone,  but  all  illuminated 
by  the  light  which  broke  through  the  darkness  and 
falls  chiefly  on  the  body  of  the  Christ.  It  is  the  gray  of 
dawn.  The  untrained,  undisciplined  lad  is  met  by  a  sur- 
prise in  the  "  loud  voice"  from  the  cross,  which  will  ever 
abide  with  him,  and  bring  day  to  much  that  must  later 
come  to  his  mind.  The  thoughtful  and  faithful  centuri- 
on— thoughtful  and  faithful  in  his  calling  —  becomes 
through  this  "  loud  voice"  the  possessor  of  a  sudden  and 
joyful  faith,  that  voices  itself  in  the  words :  "  Truly  this 
was  the  Son  of  God."  The  good  and  sympathetic  Mary, 
wife  of  Cleophas,  sees  revealed  in  this  "loud  voice"  as 
in  a  moment  all  the  meaning  in  the  Messianic  hopes  of 
her  people.    The  dawn  of  a  new  day  throws  its  light  on 


THE  CHRIST- PAINTINGS  OP  MUNKAC8Y.  313 

this  group.  This  is  the  power  which  binds  together  the 
group. 

Group  4. — The  Roman  Soldier  Youth,  the  Merchant  Jew, 
the  Perplexed  Scribe.  ("  He  that  is  not  with  me  is  against 
me.") 

The  fourth  group  is  composed  of  the  Eoman  soldier 
sitting  on  the  rock  to  the  right  of  the  cross,  of  the  mer- 
chant Jew  to  the  left  of  the  high -priest,  and  of  the 
thoughtful,  perplexed  scribe,  to  whom  the  Pharisee  is 
talking.  The  thoughtful  seriousness  on  their  faces  binds 
this  group  together.  The  youthful  soldier  is  at  a  loss  to 
know  the  meaning  of  this  complex  scene.  Scenes  of 
carnage  he  had  met ;  death  was  not  new  to  him.  But 
the  rumors  about  this  man  who  is  called  in  derision 
the  "  King  of  the  Jews ;  "  his  followers,  women  weeping, 
and  a  quiet,  calm,  grief-full  man — these  rumors  and 
these  followers,  not  the  fact  of  death  with  which  he  was 
well  acquainted,  were  the  powers  which  had  made  seri- 
ous his  face.  The  merchant,  apparently,  was  walking 
with  the  high-priest  when  the  "  loud  voice  "  was  heard. 
He  turns  full  around.  Accustomed  to  decide  on  the  qual- 
ity of  goods  by  test,  of  the  worth  of  money  by  trial,  he 
had  an  instinctive  habit  of  finding  out  the  worth  of 
things  by  considering  them  not  from  prejudice,  but  from 
experience.  This  "  loud  voice  "  came  as  new  to  him,  and 
seriously  he  will  attend  to  its  meaning.  The  last  figure 
in  this  group  is  the  aged  scribe.  His  brows  aix)  knit, 
his  eyes  directed  to  the  ground.  There  is  almost  a  re- 
sentment at  the  fluent  words  of  the  Pharisee,  who  would 


314  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

reason  away  easily  the  facts  which  had  been  witnessed 
within  the  last  few  hours.  The  question  of  the  identity 
of  Him  who  died  on  the  cross  is  uppermost.  A  whole 
system  stands  or  falls  with  the  answer,  A  "  loud  voice  " 
from  the  cross  cannot  arouse  him  from  the  intensity  of 
his  reflection.  The  life,  the  teachings,  the  works  of  this 
crucified  man  are  louder  in  their  voices  to  him  than  His 
final  voice  on  the  cross.  But  he  passes  away  from  the 
cross  unsettled,  but  not  unimpressed.  Were  we  to  vent- 
ure  to  name  this  perplexed,  thoughtful  scribe,  we  would 
call  him  the  Pharisee  Gamaliel — that  one  who  said  later 
concerning  the  work  of  the  disciples  of  Christ :  "  If  it  be 
of  God,  ye  cannot  overthrow  it." 

Group  5. — The  High -priest^  the  Sadducee,  the  Roman 
Commander.  ("By  what  authority  dost  thou  these 
things?") 

We  may  now  turn  to  antithetic  groups.  These  are 
three.  The  first  we  will  consider  contains  the  high- 
priest,  the  Sadducee  (falsely  called  the  "  purse-proud 
Pharisee  "),  and  the  Eoman  commander.  Authority  is 
the  binding  tie.  The  "loud  voice  "  from  the  cross  comes 
to  each.  Alone  the  Roman  commander  hears  it  unmoved. 
His  visage  is  that  of  one  hardened  by  the  pleasures  which 
are  always  within  the  reach  of  absolute  power.  He  is 
present  at  this  time  only  as  an  act  of  duty,  that  the  rabble 
may  arouse  no  civil  commotion.  The  anger  on  the  one 
side  and  the  pathetic  suffering  on  the  other  had  no  power 
even  to  elicit  any  recognition.  Absolute  fidelity  to  Rome, 
and  afterward  slave  to  every  brutal  passion  which  could 


THE  CHRIST-PAINTINGS  OP  MUNKAC8Y.  315 

be  enjoyed  through  the  prestige  of  Eoraan  power — such 
is  this  commander.  The  high -priest  had  been  moving 
away.  The  "  loud  voice  "  reaches  him.  He  turns,  with 
every  sign  of  astonishment.  A  moment  ago  he  was  pass- 
ing away  from  the  scene  with  the  look  of  triumph  on 
his  face ;  it  still  rests  there,  but  the  upraised  face  and  the 
raised  hands  suggest  that  perhaps  yet  this  Crucified  One 
may  be  the  real  conqueror.  The  authority  of  the  high- 
priest  crumbles  if  this  one  be  really  the  Christ.  Any 
sign,  therefore,  which  might  indicate  that  he  was  not 
yet  destroyed  would  disturb  Caiaphas.  His  power  was 
not  as  unassailable  by  the  Christ  as  that  of  the  Koman 
commander.  So  the  "loud  voice"  painted,  for  the  in- 
stant, astonishment  on  his  features.  The  Sadducee  re- 
mains of  this  group.  Our  reason  for  regarding  this  fig- 
ure not  as  a  Pharisee  is  grounded  on  the  history  of  the 
time.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  figure  is  to  rep- 
resent one  with  great  wealth.  The  fine  horse  richly  ca- 
parisoned, the  costly-wrought  robe  which  he  wears  set- 
tle this  fact  beyond  a  doubt.  But  possession  of  wealth 
does  not  argue  a  Pharisee.  The  color  of  his  garment, 
however,  argues  beyond  doubt  that  the  man  is  a  Saddu- 
cee. This  garment  is  white.  Sadducee  moans  a  "right- 
eous one,"  one  unspotted,  one  whose  symbol  is  the  color 
white.  An  eminent  historian  of  this  time  writes  respect- 
ing this  sect  that  its  name  signifies  "  righteous,"  and  its 
members  "constituted  in  fact  the  wealthy  and  aristo- 
cratic portions  of  society."  The  figure  of  the  artist  and 
the  description  of  the  historian  point  to  but  one  sect,  and 


316  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

that  the  Sadducees.  The  face  of  this  Sadducee  is  also 
turned  toward  the  cross.  He  will  not  even  stop  his 
horse,  but  will  support  himself  in  motion  as  he  looks  back 
by  placing  his  left  hand  on  the  back  of  his  steed.  His 
authority  was  no  more  affected  by  the  Christ  than  that 
of  the  Roman  commander ;  hence  he  simply  and  haugh- 
tily looks  back.  A  wealthy,  self-contained  self-righteous- 
ness is  as  hardening  as  the  coarse  deeds  of  a  Roman  com- 
mander. The  fanaticism  of  Caiaphas  is  consistent  with 
noble  lines  in  the  face.  But  the  coarse  sensuality  of  the 
Roman  commander  and  the  refined  dissipations  of  the 
outwardly  righteous  Sadducee  rob  the  human  counte- 
nance of  every  noble  character-line. 

Group  6. — The  Group  of  Strangers.  ("Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth, the  King  of  the  Jews.") 

The  second  of  the  antithetic  groups  is  found  in  the  ex- 
treme left  of  the  painting,  behind  the  Sadducee.  They 
are  all  strangers,  drawn  together  by  the  sight  of  the 
crowd.  One,  looking  like  a  gan'ulous  Bedouin,  is  point- 
ing to  the  cross  and  telling  the  others  the  scraps  of  infor- 
mation he  had  picked  up.  The  group  is  negative;  the 
faces  seem  to  bespeak  simply  a  listening  to  an  idle  tale. 

GrROUP  7. —  The  Executioner,  the  Pharisee,  the  Judas. 
(""Whom  ye  have  crucified.") 

The  third  one  in  these  antithetic  groups  is  made  up  of 
the  executioner,  the  fleeing  Judas,  and,  midway  between 
these,  the  Pharisee,  who  talks  so  confidently  to  the  per- 
plexed scribe.  Their  falseness  unites  them.  The  execu- 
tioner is  simply  a  butcher.     Blood  is  not  sacred  to  him. 


THE  CHBI8T-PAINTINGS  OP  MUNKAC^Y.  317 

Authority  decrees  death.  He  thereupon  executes  the  de- 
cree. A  shriek,  a  groan,  a  sob,  a  tear  must  not  deter  him 
nor  touch  him.  Such  work,  although  sanctioned  by  civil- 
ized law,  imbrutes  the  doer.  Awful  irony  is  employed 
by  the  artist  in  this  person.  Laws  thirsting  for  blood 
may  rid  the  world  of  criminals,  yet  at  the  same  time  they 
leave  in  the  world,  characters  as  dead  to  every  tender 
emotion  as  the  dead  who  have  been  executed.  Such  is 
the  awful  penalty  upon  the  executioner  who  must  carry 
out  laws  demanding  blood.  The  retreating  figure  is  Ju- 
das. A  hon-or  fills  his  heart,  paints  itself  on  his  face, 
shows  itself  in  the  clinched  hands  pressed  against  his 
throbbing  breast,  and  compels  a  running  away  from  the 
place  where  the  horror  took  possession  of  him.  He  knew 
whom  he  had  betrayed.  This  knowledge  awoke  a  hell  of 
suffering  within  him.  If  but  for  a  moment  the  execu- 
tioner could  have  known  whom  he  had  nailed  to  the  cross, 
a  horror  would  have  seized  him,  and  he  too  would  have 
taken  flight.  Still,  the  flight  of  the  executioner  would 
be  under  a  horror  immeasui-ably  less  sorrow-bringing 
than  the  horror  of  Judas.  To  betray  love  for  money  or 
any  value  leads  to  an  awful  horror  as  soon  as  the  deed 
has  been  brought  homo  to  conscience.  The  only  figure 
remaining  unconsidered  now  in  this  group  is  the  Phari- 
see. He  is  talking  to  the  thoughtful,  perplexed  scribe, 
likewise  a  Pharisee.  His  gesture  with  his  hands  is  that 
of  emphatic  assertion.  All  his  conclusions  have  been 
reached.  Ho  is  as  undisturbed  by  the  "  loud  voice  "  as 
the  Eoman  commander.    The  great  enemy  to  the  teach- 


318  DISCUSSIONS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

ings  of  the  Pharisees  he  sees  impaled  upon  the  cross.  All 
the  declarations  of  the  Christ  die  with  him.  Pharisaism 
is  safe.  The  final  shout  of  the  pretended  Messiah  to  the 
Father  is  only  in  line  with  that  blasphemous  boasting 
which  led  this  deceiver  of  the  people  to  announce  himself 
while  living  the  Son  of  God.  His  works  in  life  could  not 
move  a  Pharisee,  nor  can  his  "  loud  voice  "  in  the  time  of 
death  produce  that  effect.  One  knows  that  the  artist 
loved  John.  No  heart  but  a  loving  heart  could  so  pow- 
erfully depict  the  loving  disciple ;  hence  we  are  not  sur- 
prised that  the  Johannean  account  of  the  last  days  of  the 
Christ  should  be  the  favorite  one  with  the  artist.  These 
are  John's  words :  "  Judas  then,  having  received  a  band 
of  men  and  officers  from  the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees." 
John  couples  Judas  and  the  Pharisees  together ;  so  does 
our  artist.  Judas  and  the  Pharisees  are  in  the  same 
group.  The  secret  of  color  will  also  confirm  us  in  our 
opinion.  The  dress  of  the  executioner  is  a  blue,  which 
has  become  pale  through  long  washing.  It  is  a  blue  that 
has  lost  its  color,  just  like  his  face,  which  has  lost  its 
character.  The  dress  of  Judas  is  likewise  a  blue,  but  a 
blue  that  is  traitor  to  itself.  A  blue  it  is  that  seems 
ready  to  change  into  a  black.  The  dress  of  the  Pharisee 
is  also  a  blue,  but  not  deep  like  the  heavens  above,  nor 
warm  like  friendship  below.  It  is  a  blue  like  a  house- 
painter  might  mix — not  like  the  blue  which  God  makes 
in  the  flowers.  Blue  is  a  symbol  of  the  true;  but  it 
should  deck  an  executioner  only  when  it  is  faded,  a 
Judas  only  when  it  threatens  to  turn  black,  a  Pharisee 


THE  CHEIST-PAINTINQS  OP  MUNKACSY.  319 

only  when  it  is  a  mixture  and  no  natural  color,  since  each 
of  these  characters  is  untrue  through  a  degrading  trade, 
or  a  shameful  betrayal,  or  a  distorted  religious  faith. 

There  are  seven  groups.  Three  of  these  groups  &re  un- 
der the  influence  of  the  power  of  the  cross;  three  are 
hostile  or  indifferent  to  the  cross.  The  cross  group  is 
central,  and,  in  itself,  represents  all  the  other  groups, 
since  Christ,  even  on  the  cross,  divides  those  who  are 
crucified  with  him. 

The  picture  is  the  work  of  a  genius,  who  is  not  alone 
master  of  the  brush,  but  also  of  the  passions  which  move 
in  men.  He  is  also  a  master-genius,  since  in  a  painting 
with  about  forty  faces  he  can  bring  in  review  the  con- 
flicting age  in  which  the  Christ  came  as  the  Saviour  of 
mankind.  The  whole  period  is  before  us.  We  behold 
its  hope.  We  behold  likewise  its  despair.  It  was  an  age 
with  a  dark  sky,  broken  into  by  the  Light  from  heaven. 
The  picture  makes  us  see  how  sublime  a  thing  it  is  to 
suffer  for  the  cross,  how  hateful  a  thing  it  is  to  bo  indif- 
ferent to  the  cross.  All  sorrow  and  weakness  in  those 
with  faith  in  the  cross  beautifies,  and  all  strength  and 
power  in  those  who  disbelieve  in  the  cross  make  ugly. 
The  truth  is  eternal — the  exhibition  of  it  grand  and  mas- 
terly, its  author  one  of  the  master-painters  of  the  world. 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Series  9482 


